MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 426, 8 February 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

, •'' ' POLICE CASES. /

(Before Mr. W.' G. Riddell, S.M.) ■

. ■ f THE HAINING STREET RAID.

EUROPEANS FINED.

,/ CHINAMEN PLEAD NOT GUILTY. As a. sequel to tho police raid on certain promise's in Hainmg Street on Friday night, Nowrßeo was chargefl:' (1) That being the occupier of premise's 53 Hainmg Street ho 1 ' did use the same as a common gaming house,' ,' and (2) "that ho unlawfully sold a ticket by which permission and authority were given tho purchaser to have an interest in a schomo by which prizes woro gained by a mode of , chance/ Jo© Lira a'nd Kong Young woie similarly charged in respect of premises 9 Haining Street and 49 Haining Street respectively. 'Defendants, who pleaded not guilty, wore represented ,by Mr. Herdman, who applied for-'a remand "to Wednesday nest. Bail was allowed in the'sum of £50 and one- surety of'£so> - • ■ •Henry M'Laughlin, Peter Lapayno, David ' Morris Owens, Chas.' Stowell, Jas. Van Borssum, Thos., Williams, Thos. Hughes, ,and Tim, Hum, who were found in tho houses when tho raid was made, werp separately ' charged with having been found in a common gaming' house., With", the excoption of Owens and Tim Kum/all pleaded guilty, Van Borssum in- ,' forming the Court that ho had only gone into tho house to borrow a cigarette fiom a friend. He was ]not awaro thai tho house was a gaming' house. His impression of the Gaming Act',was that it enforced tho posting of a notice on the door of a gaming house. He had been out of work for 16 weeks, and his Worship must know of the slackness which ' Miad been' in the carpentering trade. Ho would ask the Court to do as lenient as possible. _ " " Lapayne was convicted and fined 60s. and co'sts'7s., in default 14 days' imprisonment, the'police stating that defendant had betn ssonvictcd, in July last for a similar offence. M'Laughlin, Stowell, Van Borssum, Williams, 'and Hughes were each conyicted and fined 60s. arid costs 75., in default 7 days' imprisonment. 1 ■■ , Owens, who was defended Mr. Dunn, end .states that ho can give a satisfactory • explanation of his presence in tho house, was Temanded to Wednesday, bail being fixed at '£5.' \ ■ Tim Kum was also remanded to Wednesday, the .bail being £5. '' LUXURIES FOR PRISONERS, \, .-'- 'THE DONOR FINED £5. Thomas Teece appeared in answer to a ' ehargo that on February 5, at Wellington, he_ did Attempt to deliver to prisoners undergoing sentence at Mount Cook five packets of,,cigarette tobacco, three dozen boxes of matches* three sticks of tobacco sixteen cigarette-paper hooks, and one pound %oi butter. Accused pleaded guilty. ■ ' . Svtb-Inspector Phnir -informed the Court that whilst Constable Dyer ,was on duty in the Mount Cook reserve, he saw accused come up near, to whore the prisoners were working I carrying two parcels. Tho constable's suspicions being aroused, ho watched arid subse-1 t quently', arrosted accused, and on searching , Sim,' found the articles mentioned in the 1 in-' formation in'his possession. Accused, who i had only .been out of gaol,a few days, after serving a sentence of two'years for assault , and'robbery, admitted that he intended giving the at tides, to .the prisoneis ; ■His Worship warned accused that ho was liable t, . fine of £20,0r up, to three'mottths' imprjsonnient for offerer He would bo convicted, and fined £5, •\ in » default ono , month's imprisonment. ' M 'if "OTHER CASES! >. Thos.'Randall,'charged with havingibeen found by night without lawful excuse in an enclosed, yard in Cuba Street, elected to be tried* by ; a'jury: and ~was 'remanded to,Wednesday,.rie,"rt. ~,. K -.,_ .i - .,.,, '.„.-,",' Rita ' May Patton, alias Partridge, alias Evans, was charged ,that on May 4 she did wilfully ,make a certain'false statement, to " the-Registrar of Bi.-ths, to - wit/that she was married to' one Jaa. Evansj at Dunedin, on-March 10,, 189 S. , Chief Detective M'Grath asked for a remand to February 10, and suggested a light bail, Twhich was fixed in the sum of £20 and one surety of £20. The Chief Detective remarked that ho did not think tho case was a serious one. ' -Samuel Cameron, charged with" insobriety, was lonvicted-and fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. Rose Elizabeth Brown similarly ' charged was convicted; and discharged, on condition that she left for her home in the country by the'afternoon train. One first offender' was convicted and fine'd fis., m default 24 hours' imprisonment. BOOKMAKERS' ADVERTISEMENTS.

A NEWSPAPER PENALISED. An lntciesting decision was given by Mr. W. G 'Riddell, S.M., in the case ot tho Pohco %'/. J. T. M'Kinnon, an information under • Section 30 of the Gaming Act, 1008, charging defendant with selling a- copy of tho newspaper "New Zealand Truth," of January' 2, 1909, which paper contained ad-1 vertisotaents oi notifications by certain persons,' viz., P. J. Flanagan, 0. Westbrook, F. Martin, and Stehn and Davidson, whereby it was 'made to appear that such persons ■were, an! each of them was, willing to make bets or wagers on the result of certain horse races in New Zealand, i.e., on races to be run on Januaiy 20, January 22, and January.; 23. The facts were not disputed, and-it was proved that, with the exception , of Martin, the poisons named m tho information were bookmakers residing in Wellington, J and wore on tho Tientham Racecourse i carrying von thoir business, which was making bots on the results of tho dif-ferent-races inn on the whole oi some of the days mentioned above. The Act defined' a, bookmaker as any person who acts or, carries on business as a bookmakor or turf,commission agent or who gains or who endeavours to gam his\livelihood wholly or partly by betting or making wagers. The advertisements we o genoial in character, calling .the attention of tho public to the fact that each of tho turf commission agents mentioned would bo found at tho pimcipal race meetings, of which the Wellington meeting was one. In Stehn and Davidson's case it was stated that they executed commissions on all principal racecourses. The ordinary inferenco to be drawn from tho advertisements was thai,-thcy were ni6eitod for Imsiriess purposes, or, in other words, they were,'invitations to the public that these peiEons weie prepared to bet with them on the,racecourse and on the events taking place there. If tho advertisement* wcic j><" for business pmposcs, then the'onus was c , the defendant to show this, and ho had no I done 1 so. Sub-Section 2of Section 30 of tlio Gaming Act mado every person liable to a fine (not "■exceeding £20 who published, sold, or publicly exhibited any newspaper containing any advertisement or notification by or 6f behalf of any person whereby it was mado 'to appear that such person or any other person was willing to make any bet or wagef'on the result of any horse race to be run" in oi out of New Zealand. The scope of the words "is made to appear" in the sub-eection waG very wide, and showed that tho words of the advertisement need not be direct so long as their meaning was clear. Ills Worship thought that Mr Dunri's argument that Section 30 was designed to prevent street botfmg or wire betting placed too harrow a construction on tho section. The object of tho Act was not only to confine betting to the racecourse, but to re-gtilate-as far as possible all gaming, betting or wagering, and to prevent the publication of information which would lead to betting, and although the Act provided that racing clubs might license bookmakers who miglvt by virtue of such licenses lawfully make bets on racecourses, yet there was nothing m it to show that such a license carried with it the light to advertise. The license did not jnake tin bookmaker exempt from the provisions of Section 30 His Woiship held that defendant must bo convicted ot an offence under sub-sootion 2 of Section 30. He would bo fined £5 and costs £3 10s. Mr. Myers appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Dunn for defendant.