ILLEGAL EUCHRE

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 166, 9 April 1932, Page 12

ILLEGAL EUCHRE

Drives for Prizes FOUR* PROMOTERS FINED Conducting a series of euchre drives in Wellington; at which prizes were offered, resulted in four men, Arthur Annear, Frederick Laurel Eales, John George Baillie and Howard Headiteu, appearing in the Police Court yesterday, charged with using certain premises as common gaming houses. Annear aud Eales were fined 10/- and costs, aud Baillie and Headifen £2 and costs, the magistrate ordering each pair to share its respective penalty. The facts, as outlined by Senior-Ser-geant Scott, were that defendants Annear and Eales had been conducting euchre tournaments at the Ron de D oo Hall, Ellice Street, and Baillie and Heddifen at a hall situated at 9 Riddiford Street. , „ „ „ In the case of the Ron de 100 Hall, two tournaments were held on February 4 and 26, an admission charge ot 17being made. First and second prizes were given according to the takings at the door. On February 4 there were about 21 persons present, and at the close of the evening’s play a first prize of 5/6 and a second of 2/6 were given. Coming to the case of the tournament conducted in Riddiford Street by Baillie and Headifen, the senior-sergeant said that he understood that this had. been held regularly for about the past ten years. A charge of 2/- was made for admission, and prizes were paid out ranging from £2. to 5/-, which were ciders on shopkeepers. The proceeds were divided between the two defendants, the tournament being held solely for their own benefit. On two nights constables had been present at the tournaments, and had seen euchre played. The police based their prosecution on a case, Young v. Britten, decided by .Mr. Justice Adams, in Christchurch, in 1928, in which the facts were similar to the present case. Counsel for defendants said that although the four men had pleaded guilty to a charge which sounded sinister—that of keeping a common gaming house —he submitted that it was very different from the ordinary case which came before the court. He was bound to advise the men to plead guilty because of the case of, Young v. Britten. Counsel submitted that the case was ou the borderline so far as any moral taint was concerned. The euchre tournaments were attended by reputable people, mostly elderly people, who looked forward to spending an evening in this way.

As to Baillie and Headifen, when the Christchurch case was decided in 1928, they thought that they would be told by the police that they should not carry on, but they had heard nothing until the present prosecution. Over the ten years during which the tournaments had been conducted, the two defendants had not made more than £1 a week each. Annear and Eales were out of work and had run the tournaments merely to make a few shillings.