THE GAMING ACT

Evening Star, Issue 19519, 29 March 1927, Page 8

THE GAMING ACT

AN APPEAL CASE [Pei United Press Association,] WELLINGTON, Mai-ch 29. Tho Court of Appeal was occupied this morning in determining tho appeal of Walter Hulston, of Christchurch, tobacconist, against tho decision of Mr Justice Adams, who, on February 25,' made a declaration under section 14, subsection 1 of the “ Gaming Act, 1908,” declaring Hulston’s premises at 171-173 Madras street, Christchurch, to be a common gaming-house. The respondent is Allan Cameron, of Christchurch, inspector of police. The case has caused much interest, because tiie application hoard by Mr Justice Adams was tho first application in New Zealand under the section, which reads —“That on tho affidavit of a superintendent or inspector of police showing reasonable ground for suspecting that any premises are used as a common gaming-house, the Supremo Court may declare such premises to be a common gaming-house.” The only relevant decisions arc two which were given in Victoria in 1907, and Mr Justice Adams held that he was guided by tho principles set down in these cases. In the course of his judgment, he said: “I am satisfied that there were reasonable and ample grounds for the suspicion of the inspector, Tho owner of the premises has appeared and has been cross-examined upon his affidavit. His demeanour under cross-examination was very unsatisfactory, and I regret to say that his evidence is, in ray opinion, absolutely unreliable. 1 have no doubt that he'know what was going on, and there appear to be grounds for suspicion that he was actively concerned in the unlawful use of tho premises. It would be unsafe to rely upon his preferred assurance against further use of the premises for the same purpose. No valid reason having been shown to the contrary, tho declaration asked for is made.” Mr Myers, K.C., and Mr Sargent appeared for appellant, and Mr Donnelly for respondent. Mr Donnelly raised a preliminary objection questioning the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in this case. Ho submitted that the affidavit appealed from was not a civil one, and therefore not within tho civil jurisdiction of the court. After hearing Mr Myers in reply the court decided to reserve its decision on the point, and argument of the case was proceeded with.