CHARGES AGAINST CHINESE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIX, Issue 16, 20 January 1910, Page 2

CHARGES AGAINST CHINESE.

I ALLEGED GAMING HOUSES. SEQUEL TO RAID IN HAININGSTREET. As a result of the sudden descent by the police upon Haining-street last week the two Chinese — Jim Young and Wong Lee — appeared in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, charged with being the occupiers of Nos. 53 and 48, Haining-street, respectively, during the current month, they did use the premises as a common gaming house. Arising out of the same cases, two other Chinese — Sue Bun and Joe Wong — were charged with being found in a common gaming house — No. 48, Hain-ing-street. Accused pleaded not guilty. The charg^ against Jim Young was taken first. Sub-Inspector Norwood prosecuted, and Mr. Wilford appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Wm. Harold Nugent, probationary constable, who stated that he saw Jim Young marking pak-a-poo tickets at No. 53, Hainingstreet, on the evening of- the 4th January. Witness purchased two tickets from accused, and marked them. There were several Europeans present in the room, some of whom also marked tickets. < Witness made several subsequent visits, and marked additional tickets. Probationary Constable Andrew Woods also gave evidence of having visited accused's premises and purchased pak-a-poo tickets. , Sergeant Rutledge, who headed the raid on the premises, submitted a description of the game of pak-a-poo. Sergeant Murphy, who assisted in the raid, also gave evidence. For the defence, Mr. Wilford urged : — ;(1) That the evidence of accomplices, without corroboration, was not sufficient to call upon accused to stand on his defence ; (2) that the information as laid, before being amended, disclosed no pffence; (3) that the consent of the magistrate to the amending of the information was ultra vires; (4) that there was no proof , that the house in which accused was found was a common gaming house within the meaning of the Gaming Act, 1908 ; (5) that there was no proof that the premises were used for playing an unlawful game; (6) that there was no proof that any unlawful game was being "placed," within the meaning of the Gaming Act; and (7) that there was no proof that the premises were "owned or "occupied' by accused, within the meaning o f the Act.Decision was reserved by the magistrate. Accused were remanded till Friday, bail being allowed. Pending decision in the case of Jim Young, Wong Lee, Sue Bun, and Joe Wong were also remanded.