THE RAID ON "GAMES OF CHANCE.

Evening Post, Volume XXI, Issue 30, 7 February 1881, Page 2

THE RAID ON "GAMES OF CHANCE.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court to-day the remanded charges againßt John Coburn, Alfred Edments, and William Gardner, for respectively playing " nnder-ahd-over," "roulette," and canary sweeps," on the Hutt racecourse, on the 3rd instant, came up for the judgment of Mr. Shannon and Dr. Diver, J P.'s. Mr. Bell now appeared for the prosecution, and asked for permission to argue as to whether tha coor«9 jfatf * or was not a public place. Mr. Stafford*, -' who again represented- the defendants* pointed out that the case for the prosecation had already been closed. It seemed, he said, as if the police were anxious to press these charges against the defendants. Mr Bell explained that the prosecution did not care for the conviction- of these particular men. What they wished to do was to see if they could not put a stop to illlegal acts on the racecourse. This was of far more importance than the conviction of the present defendants. Mr. Stafford remarked that, if such were the case, why did not the police arrest one of the betting men, who flashed their £5 notes about the course for betting— purposes that day. That would have been a proper case for tost. Mr. Bell then quoted Paley on Summary Convictions, ana cited cases to show that 'busses and railway car* riages had been held to be public places, and said although a fee had been oharged for admission to the racecourse, this must also be presumed to be a public place. Mr. Stafford said the cases were not analogous, inasmuch as it was the fact that 'busses and railway carriages travelled along public highways that rendered them '* public places." Mr. Bell subsequently mentioned that the reason why tha totalisator had not been seized, as had been advocated in Borne quarter*, was because grave and serious doubts existed

as to whether the totalisator was really an instrument of gaming. Personally— though his opinion was not final — he believed it was not. Mr. Stafford wished it to be underBtood that he did not blame the police constables for this raid. He blamed those who had instituted the prosecution — he did not know who they were— for not having taken a strong special case and fought it out. After consulting with his colleagues for a few minutes, Mr. Shannon said — The Bench is of opinion that thero are certain parts of the racecourse public property, ana these parts are a public place. But there are other portions of the racecourse whioh are private property, included in the racecourse, and it nas not been shown in evidence where this offence has taken place ; and as this is the first offence and certain grave legal technicalities have occurred, we dismiss the information. Mr. Bell then announced his intention of proceeding with the case against Gardner, charged with playing "under and over," which he said had not been entered into. Mr. Stafford disputed this statement, contending it had been arranged the evidenoe in this case should be admitted ; and he was upheld by the Bench. Sergeant Anderson asserted that he had not given a word of evidence in connection with tbe third case. After a rather animated discussion, Mr. Shannon said — We have come to our decision. We muat adhere to it, and if the counsel is dissatisfied, he must apply to a higher authority. — The whole of the informations wero accordingly dismissed.