FOUR MEN CHARGED

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 132, 1 December 1938, Page 5

FOUR MEN CHARGED

PLEA BY COUNSEL

Four / offenders under the Gaming Act came before Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., in the Lower Hutt Court today A plea for the dismissal of the charges against two of the defendants as trivial, so that this might lead to an alteration in the law, was made by Mr. C. R. Barrett. «

The accused and the charges against them were James William Waldie, barman, bookmaking; George Phillips, tobacconist, keeping a common gaminghouse; Nelson Victor Phillips, assisting in keeping a common gaming-house; and Hora.ce Kenneth Skilton, tobacconist, keeping a common gaming-: house. All pleaded guilty. ;

Mr. Barrett\ said that the offences were of a purely statutory nature and did not involve dishonesty. It was difficult to understand the reason for the difference, between penalties under the Gaming Act and for negligent driving, the maximum in- both Acts being the same, but the usual penalties under the Gaming Act were so much heavier than the other. Possibly the intention was that the heavier penalties might put a stop to bookrnaking, but the bookmaker only survived because of the demand for his services.

Mr. Barrett maintained that the Government encouraged betting. 'The Standard," which, he said, was believed to be in line with the feeling of th,e Government, referred to the fad? that £1,000,000 a year went oufc of New Zealand to overseas lotteries. This paper seemed to be trying to get the feeling of the public .on more attractive facilities for lotteries.

Mr. Barrett also contended that there was too much hypocrisy about the administration of the law, as the bookmaker was .always charged and not the man who laid the bet, although there was provision for this. As far as he could remember there had not been a prosecution of this kind since 1921. He asked the Magistrate to dismiss X the offences as trivial, as this might1 lead to an amendment of the law or the licensing of bookmakers.

Detective-Sergeant F. N. Robinson said that Phillips came under the notice of the police in the second week of the Christchurch races. His son assisjted in the shop, The premises were raided on the second day of the Waikato races. Only one betting slip was found on the premises. Phillips, senior, told the police that no betting had been done that day. He had twice been before the Court before for breaches of the ; Gaming Act and his son once before.

Mr. Barrett said that Phillips, sen., was 63 and his son 26. They were honest and well-respected citizens. Philips, sen., was first convicted 16 years ago and the second time four and a half years ago, when he was fined £15 and his son, who was charged for the first time, £1. They were in a small way and only received a commission of Is 6d in'the £. ,

Phillips, sen., was fined £20 and his son £5. * ' ■ ' Detective-Sergeant Robinson said that when Skilotn was raided betting material showed that he had taken twenty-seven bets totalling £11 10s. Slips found at the shop showed he had taken bets on the Levin and Christchurch meetings. He had not been before the Court before.

Mr. E. F. Rothwell said that Skilton was prominently associated with sporting bodfes and the majority of customers of this nature at his shop expected betting facilities to be offered to them. He was not in a large way and operated on commission.

Skilton was fined £15

Cdncerning Waldie, Detective-Ser-geant Robinson said that he was a barman at Lower Hutt. He had been taking 5s straight-out bets and\ 2s 6d "doubles." When he was arrested he had only one betting slip on him and one "double chart." He had £44 8s 6d in his possession. He had not. been before the Court before.

Mr ; . Barrett said that Waldje was not in business on his own account. He did a certain amount of betting himself and customers asked him to take bets for them. The class of bet was very small. He did not get any benefit out of these bets and was not an agent. The £44 in his possession con-r sisted of his usual and holiday wages and money won when he attended the Christchurch races. ,

Mr. Barrett added that he understood that a policeman from outside the district had placed bets with these men. * .

In fining Waldie £15 the Magistrate remarked that* he did not think that a man who pleaded guilty to bookmaking would not get some benefit out of it. . '■ • ' :> •:'■

The Magistrate said that if-he were to dismiss offences of the kind mentioned above as trivial it- would amount to the presumption of the duty of Magistrates to try and teach the legislators. Facilities were allowed for gambling on totalisators and through art unions. These men were earning a livelihood out of people who gambled in this particular way. He was not prepared to accept all that was said on the ethical side. Much could be said about the evil that arose out of betting in this way. He did riot think it was true that tobacconists did bookmaking as a natural addition to their other duties, but if it was so it was a grave reflection on them.