GAMING CHARGE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 290, 7 December 1944, Page 6

GAMING CHARGE

S.M.'S ORDER NOT OBEYED There was a sensational interruption during the hearing of a case brought against Henry Clifton Sallery in the Police Court this morning when Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., who presided, adjourned the proceedings after ordering Mr. Trevor Henry, counsel for defendant, to sit down. The magistrate adjourned the case for ten minutes when Mr. Henry refused to resume his seat unless Mr. Levien withdrew a remark made to him.

Defendant was charged, on November 3, being the owner of premises in Swanson Street, he used them as a common gaming house, and, further with using the premises as a common betting house, being an indictable offence. Sallery pleaded not guilty. Detective-Sergeant Trethewey, who prosecuted, said his intention was to withdraw the second charge on completion of the hearing of evidence on the first. Office Found Open Detective H. F. Miller said that as the result of a telephone message he went to defendant's premises in Swanson Street at 4.30 a.m. on October 14, and found an office door forced open. Two desks in the office appeared to be ransacked. While in the office he saw a scribbling pad on which the names of horses had been written. He also saw some betting slips. Mr. Henry objected to this evidence, which he said was not admissable because the document had not been produced. It was highly improper that such evidence should be given as no one knew what the slips were. Mr. Trethewey said the detective had no power to take them at the time as he was merely investigating a burglary. Continuing, Detective Miller said he saw two typewriters, an addressograph, a cyclostyle, a radio and two telephones. He secured the premises before leaving. At 4.30 p.m. on November 3 ne accompanied Detective Mahood to the same premises, and while outside the door of the office he heard Sallery speaking, and the words "Eighteen pounds to one" and "Sixteen to one."

When witness entered the office Sallery was sitting down with the telephone in his hand. He heard him remark "Oh, they're here." Sallery then picked up a doubles sheet and a scribbling pad and put them in his pocket and left the room. When he returned he tore the skin off the cyclostyle and put it in his pocket. "We searched the room and found four doubles charts in the waste paper basket," added the detective, "also two betting slips containing the entries of bets on several horses. While there 1 answered the phone. A woman asked for £1 each way on Indian Clipper, but when I asked her who was speaking she cut off. When the phone rang again Detective Mahood answered it, but Sallery thumped the receiver down and said 'You are not going to get any evidence of bets over my phone, Mahood.' He then took the two receivers in his arms and held them there for a minute or so."

Detective Mahood corroborated much of the evidence given by Detective Miller. On November 3 he executed a search warrant on the premises. On the wall witness found a list of names and telephone numbers, which included the names of 11 bookmakers who had been convicted. Sallery asked him if he was interested in those. Witness replied "Yes, I'm always interested in bookmakers' numbers." To this Sallery made no reply.

Witness said he took possession of a list of - 200 persons whose names were in a file used for an addressograph. At this stage Mr. Levien drew Mr. Henry's attention to the defendant, who was writing something on the list referred to by Detective Mahood as having been found on the wall. "Something Crossed Out" "Look, your client is marking the exhibit," said the magistrate, who directed it to be returned to him. "Something has been crossed out on this exhibit which I cannot now read," added Mr. Levien. Mr. Henry: I'm sorry, sir. As soon as I saw my client with it I told him not to write on it. He then crossed out what he had written— Mr. Levien: It is highly improper. If I were the police I would refuse to hand you an exhibit in any future case of this type. I would direct them to do so— "I take exception to that remark," said Mr. Henry. Mr. Levien: You can take what exception you like, Mr. Henry. It was highly improper. Mr. Henry walked up to the bench with the intention of picking up the exhibit to explain the matter when Mr. Levien said: "I am not going to hand it to you again." Mr. Henry began to explain, but was advised to sit down. When he kept on his feet he was once more told to resume his seat.

Mr. Levien then ordered Sallery, who had been sitting next to Mr. Henry, to stand in the dock. After refusing to sit down Mr. Henry said: "As a member of this bar I am entitled to see any exhibit placed before this Court— "Sit down, Mr. Henry," ordered the magistrate. Mr. Henry: I am not going to sit down. You have stated I am not going to be shown any exhibits. I repeat that as a member of the bar it is my right to see any exhibit produced in a case when I am engaged— Mr. Levien: Are you going to sit down? Mr. Henry: Yes, when you withdraw that remark. With counsel still standing in front of the magistrate's bench, Mr. Levien adjourned the hearing for ten minutes. Evidence Resumed On the resumption no further reference was made to the incident. Detective Mahood, continuing his evidence, said he noticed a printed doubles chart protruding from Sallery's pocket on November 3. He also produced a card found on the premises on which were printed some telephone numbers. "I take it I have permission to see this exhibit?" asked Mr. Henry. "Yes," saia the magistrate, "as long as your client does not handle it." To Mr. Henry the detective admitted that the uniformed police frequently visited the premises, which were those of a night club. Many books pertaining to the running of a night club were found in the office. Evidence was then given by a telephone official that two telephones installed were unlisted, but vvitness said any subscriber had the privilege of not naving his telephone listed. Mr. Henry called no evidence, but submitted that the charge must fail. The proof depended on by the prosecution consisted of four doubles •charts and two account forms, which had not been traced to Sallery. In any case the mere possession of such a small number did not indicate he was carrying on the business of a gaming house. "There must be a continuity before a conviction can ■

be gained," added counsel, who then quoted decisions by well-known judges. Further, Mr. Henry submitted that the magistrate could not accept the evidence relating to any telephone conversations, for the . evidence of the nature of the three rings was not supported and had no probative value in fixing the question whether there was any continuity of a gaming business. The matter had to be properly proven by the prosecution. No proper foundation had been laid. There was a | complete absence of sums of money,' and in fact all the usual materials , indicating betting. ! No evidence was offered by the police in respect. of the second charge, which was dismissed. ! The magistrate reserved his decision until 2.15 p.m. Two Months' Imprisonment At 2.30, when the case was resumed, the magistrate said defendant j must be convicted. ! Detective-Sergeant Trethewey said Sallery had six previous convictions , under the Gaming Act and had been fined a total of £500. In making an appeal for a monetary penalty Mr. Henry said it was a type of an offence created by the Legislature and had not always been i an offence against the law. The matter was one that was much in the minds of the public, and in view of the general overhaul of tho gaming laws, ' which no doubt would be made, counsel asked that Sallery be not sent to prison. There was no element of criminality in the offence and no harm had been done to anyone. Sallery had a good reputation and had not "been j up" since 1934. The magistrate said that under all the circumstances he could not over- j look the fact that this class of offence' had achieved some notoriety, and he j would have to Impose a term of imprisonment. This he fixed at two months. Counsel gave notice of intention to appeal.