ALLEGED GAMING-HOUSE

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 15, 17 July 1918, Page 8

ALLEGED GAMING-HOUSE

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION.

In the Supreme Court to-day his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman heard an appeal by Robert Coleman against a conviction by Mr. L. 6. Reid, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court in November, 1916, of keeping a. common' gaming house. Mr. M. Myers appeared lor the appellant, and Mr. P. S. K. Macaesey fou. the Crown. In. his opening statement, Mr. Macassey said that Coleman was charged that between the 15th' September and the Ist November, 1916, at No. 6, Rintoul-street, Newtown, he kept a common gaming house. The proceedings were taken under section 4, subsection (1) of the Gaming Act, 1908. Counsel said the facts in connection with the case were that Coleman outwardly carried on the business of a boot repairer at the premises mentioned, but it * would be shown that he carried on the' business of a bookmaker, and that on the occasions when race meetings were being held in different parts of New Zealand, continual strings of people were seen going to and coming from his shop; that he very rarely did any repairing work himself, and Slso that he had a, telephone connected with his premises, which would be cjuite out of place for his ordinary business. The police arranged for a man to make bets with Coleman on certain races.'

Detective Andrews gave evidence of searching Coleman and his. premises on Ist November, 1916, and finding a notebook containing entries of names of horses, races, amounts of money, and the names of persons with whom it was suggested bets were made. A number of racing cards were .also found. Mr. Myers submitted that there was no evidence before the Court of any bets except the bets which were made with one Murphy. If .that was so, ho would urge that that evidence did not amount to the keeping of the premises as a common gaming house. The mere fact that a bet was made on premises, even if made by a bookmaker, was not sufficient to convict a person of keeping a common gaming House.- There was nothing in the • books found to prove that the house wae kept for betting purposes. If they showed anything they could only at the least show that they, belonged to a. "punter." Generally, lie urged that there must be something in the nature of habitu.ll keeping before there could be a conviction against an occupier for keeping the premises for that purpose.

His Honour said he did not require to call on Mr. Macassey for a reply. He was satisfied that the evidence was quite sufficient to prove that the houee was used as a common gaming house, and: he dismissed tlie appeal with £5 5s costs.