ALLEGED GAMING HOUSE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 9, 10 July 1912, Page 8

ALLEGED GAMING HOUSE

' ♦ CHARGE AGAINST A BLACKSMITH. In the Magistrate's Court, before Mr. W.. G. Riddoll, S.M., to-day, Jodn James Adams, a city blacksmith, was charged with two breaches of the Gaining Act. It was alleged against him that on sth July he used his premises— No. 63, Taranaki-streat — as a common gaminghouse; also that on the same date ho make a bet of 5s with one Peter Souter in his shop — a registered factory. Sub-Inspector Sheehan prosecuted, and Mr. J. J. M'Grath appeared for defendant. The case. for tfye prosecution was i<slated by Detective-Sergeant , Casselisi Senior-Sergeaiit Rutledge, and Con stables Doyle and Souter. ' On 27th June Constable Souter went to Adams b shop, and said he wanted to have a bet. Adams, accepted 10s on Loch Mabin for a race at Napier, and entered the bet in a noto-book. He also gave the constable a, race-card, and as Souter waa leaving the shop ho remarked : ' I thought you were a policeman at first." Souter, who was attired as a wharf labourer, replied : "No, no." Witness was not then a member of the force Souter again visited the shop on the 4th and sth July, tho dates of the Ginborne races, and made bets with Adams. On sth July Detective-Sergeant Cassellß, Senior- Sergeant Rutledge, and Con - Btable Doyle executed a Bearch warrant at Adams's shop, and among other things found were a double chart relating to races to bo held- at Wellington, a . book containing entries -of bets made, and a number of race-cards. A sum of £40 8s Od was found on Adams, including two half-crowns which had been marked by Detective Cassells before Souter had visited tho shop. The detective said he knew Adams as a hardworking farrier, and he was under the impression that ho had only recently entered the bookiraking business. James Walden, racecourse detective, said he did not know defendtuit as a bookmaker. . ■ Mr. M'Grath objected to the evidence relating to happenings on the 27th of June and the 4th of July. He submitted ithat it was irrelevant, as the information charged defendant with committing acts on the sth of July. He said that it was quite clear that defendant had made bets with the constable, and he was ijuite prepared, if the first charge was withdrawn', to plead guilty' to the second. The evidence had not shown that the shop was a 'common gaming house, ,and it was outrageous to so designate it. His Worship said that the way in which the information was laid tied the evidence down to happenings on the sth. There was evidence of a bet having been mad« on that date, and the presumption wa» that other bets had been made. Presumption, however, was not proof, and as it had been held that one act of gaming was not sufficient to constitute a common gaming house, he was of the opinion that the information should be dismissed. Sub-Inspector Sheohan contended that the evidence concerning happenings on the previous days was sufficient to show that the premises had been habitually used as a gaming house. His Worship then said ho would look into the point, and decision would be reserved. • Tho hearing of the second charge was adjourned sine die. '