£100 FINE EACH

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 99, 21 January 1942, Page 10

£100 FINE EACH

Keepers Of Common Gaming Houses JAIL FOR NEXT OFFENCE Dominion Special Service. HASTINGS. January 20. Fines of £lOO were imposed on James David Dunn and James Daniel Donovan by Mr. Miller. S.M., in the Magistrates Court today, for keeping common gaming houses. They were warned by the magistrate that if they appeared again on bookmaking charges they could expect imprisonment. . . ' Detective-Sergeant 11. E. Campin said that Detective-Sergeant L. Revell visited Dunn’s house on December 2b—the day the Auckland Cup was run. Dunn admitted bookmaking and Ins records showed that he had taken £OB m bets up to 2 p.m. Defendant had one IRTyious conviction, when he was fined. 120. He was in a substantial way of business, but apart from that was an exemplary citizen. , , , Defendant had been wounded dtnin o the last war, and on his return had taken up farming, but his health had broken down, said his counsel, Mr. C. b. L. Harker. He had at no time carried on bookmaking in such a way as to tempt young people. He had not gone out for business, but had accepted bets only from those who had gone to him. His healta had now improved and he had decided to try farming again. i When he visited Donovan's b’lliard saloon, he found that £l2O m bets had been taken, said Detective-bergeaiiv Campin. Defendant was in business on his own account. He confined his activities to his personal efforts in and about the saloon, and did not have a diversity of agents. He had a previous conviction in 1939, when he was fined £3O. For Donovan. Mr. H. R. Bannister said that his client had conducted his business without seeking bettors. -I he amount was very much larger than it would have been on any ordinary day, as there were restrictions on travel. 1 was also wet, and with eight racing and trotting meetings being held in the country, there were many people placin„ bets who normally would nave been at meetings and betting on the course. The magistrate said that the police had described the two defendants as men of good character, but there was no excuse for carrying on an unlawful business. _____