"POKER" PLAYERS DISTURBED

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 288, 24 August 1918, Page 9

"POKER" PLAYERS DISTURBED

POLICE VISIT AN HOTEL

GAMBLING HELD TO HAVE

BEEN PERMITTED

About n. moil ill ago the police made ail early-morning visit to (he Hotel Cecil, and in ono of the rooms they found a small party engaged in tho game of "draw poker." '['lie result wits tho appearance of the licensee, James M'l'nrlaiul, before Mr, P. V. Frazer, S.M., at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, on an information of having permitted gambling to tako place oil the promises on July 25. Inspector Jlarsack prosecuted, and Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the defendant. Mr. Blair said it was admitted that gambling had taken place, but it was questionable whether the licensee was guilty of "constructive knowledge." Inspector Marsack stated 'that early on the morning of the date of tho information a constable's attention was attracted by the sounds of gambling in tho hotel. He took up a strategical position, and heard the usual remarks of poker player.?. He called his sergeant, and in company with him visited tho premises, wliero it was found that half a dozen men were playing "draw poker." The licensco was in bed at tho time, and tho hotel was in chargo of tho night porter.

i William Rittner, night porter at tho hotel, said that Mr. M'Parland Tc'tired about 11 p.m. Before doing so ho handed to witness the keys of tho bar, and witness received the usual instructions regarding tho supply of drinks to hoarders. Prior to tho visit of the polico a party of boarders were assembled in ono of tho rooms of the hotel, and at various times witness had supplied theso people with drinks. They were playing poker, and money was- seen on the 'table. During tho time ho had been night porter ho had never received instructions regarding tho permission of gambling.

In reply to Mr. Blair, witness said there wero about four rounds of drinks, and it was after 'the second round that ho saw money on the table. The'room had been used as a luggage room. Witness's total service at the hotel was about eleven years, and he had never seen cards played in that particular room, although ho had aeon play in other rooms. Ho had never seen a game previously in which money wn-s a factor. ■Sergeant Matlieson said ho visited tho hotel shortly before 3 a.m. on tho date of the information, and saw six men sitting round a table, each with cards in their hands. There was money beforo somo of them, and ho heard one man say,

"I owo you .165." Another remarked, "That will be all right/*

Inspector Marsack: Do you know what game they were playing?—" Yes; poker." You know tho garoo?—"Yes." (Laughtor.)

His Worship: AVe will commit ourselves no further. (More laughter.) Continuing. Sergeant Matlieson eaijl that one man had (is. before him, another .<sl Bs., another X-[ 175., and -is. was in front of another man. Two had no money, and had apparently "gouo broke." (Loud laughter.)

Mr. Blair said 'thai the question at issue was whether the licensee. was awaro that gambling yras going on in the hotel. There were no conveniences in the room in which the men were playing, and that went to show that 'the licensee was not conniving at a breach of the law. The porter was in doubt whether to draw Hie attention of tho players to the fact that they were breaking the law, or else wake up the licensee and inform him of thi! matter. Counse.l quoted a number of authorities in support of his contention that tho case against tho licenoco should be dismissed.

His Worship said that when a. porter was left in charge of an hotel his knowledge was deemed to bo the licensee's knowledge. Rittner had the full power of the licensee ; to prevent gambling, and it was his duty to have done so on the occasion under notice, lie must have known that gambling was not permitted on the premises. It was a case of vicarious liability. Taking into considers (ion the fact that tho hotel was well conducted, and that 'the porter seemed to be a "fairly decent sort of fellow,'" who, however, for some obscure reason, had shrunk from his obvious duty, His Worship would not inflict a heavy penalty. Defendant was fined JN with costs 9s. His Worship said he would make no owler iabbu't the endorsement of the liconse.