GAMING CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 284, 27 August 1930, Page 8

GAMING CHARGES

Evidence for Defence DECISION RESERVED Evidence for the defence in the joint charge against August Hjalmar Peterson ■ (Mr. J. Scott), bootmaker, aged 36, and Thomas Quin (Mr. Sievwright), merchant, aged 35, of using a shop at 50 Ghuznee Street as a common gaming house, was heard before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M-, in the Police Court yesterday. The magistrate .announced that he would reserve his decision. Both defendants denied the charge, and Peterson also denied two charges of entering into beta with Ernest Koyden Trask, a police constable, upon results of horse races. Detective-Sergeant Holmes prosecuted, , . Herbert Smith, a builder, said that he had known Peterson for about four and a half years, and frequently entered the Shop. Quin had come to the shop only recently. Witness never kfld the slightest suspicion that Peterson did any be john Backhouse, a youth employed by Peterson, denied that he had ever seen any betting going on in the shop. Neither Peterson nor Quin save evi%lr. Sievwright, for Quin, submitted that the evidence against hja client could be divided into two parts. In the first place there whs the fact that only five bets in all had been made by Quin with Constable Trask.' That contended counsel. was the maximum that could be alleged regarding the betting. In addition, there was no evidence of any other betting transactions with Quin. The second set of facts related to what was discovered after the raid a number of documents, which, counsel submitted, could be made to bear in law an innocent construction. It was also pointed out that hardly any money was found on Quin. Counsel cffiimlfl that the indications, so far as Quin was concerned, were not that ne was carrying on any betting practice, but 8 was merely having an occasional bet. This, contended counsel, was not illegal. Both Quin and Peterson were carrying on an ordinary business, and there was not the slightest evidence of large accumulations of men on the premises, nor was there any evidence of any bets having been made by telephone. The evidence of the police, continued counsel, went to show that Quin was interested in horse racing, and was carrying out his interest by keeping certain records of races, and was prepared to have an Isolated bet. Dealing first with the charges against Peterson of laying totalizator odds. Mr. Scott submitted that the police had not even made out n prima facie case against his client. He contended that there was no evidence that totalizator odds had been discussed, nor did any discussion take place in regard to what limits were imposed. In connection with the charge of using the shop as a common gaming house, counsel pointed out that evidence showed that Peterson had been carrying on business there for about five years, and only recently took Quin into dealings with him. Then there was the evidence of tiro detectives, who had had experience of gaming cases, that until the day of the raid neither knew of the shop as a betting establishment. Counsel contended that the other charges against Peterson had nothing to do with the charge in respect of 50 Ghuznee Street, and before any act done in an hotel could be brought into the charge in connection with the shop, something more would have to be shown by the police than had been shown. There must be a generalisation, as to persons with whom the transactions took place, and there must be a localisation as to the place where the transactions were carried out. The police, in the opinion of counsel, had failed to establish these requirements. Decision was reserved.