BETTING IN BARS

Evening Star, Issue 21991, 29 March 1935, Page 1

BETTING IN BARS

SEQUEL T 9 HOTEL &AJOB SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES IKP69ED LICENSEE’S WIFE FINED £75 The lightning raid carried out by the police on several hotels at ucou on January 26 and the consequent arrest of a number of persons on charges of carrying on betting transactions on the premises were finally cleared up in the Police Court this morning with an imposition of substantial penalties aggregating £IBO.

EXTENSIVE BUSINESS IN KITCHEN.

The cases were defended, and in each Mr Bundle gave his reserved decision this morning. The first concerned two charges against Mabel Quirk, wife of the former licensee of the St. Hilda Hotel, of using the kitchen of the hotel as a common gaming house. His Worship reviewed the evidence presented, and mentioned that the definition of a gaming house included premises used as a betting house, the basis of the charges being that the transactions were carried out in the kitchen. He found that Mrs Quirk had carried on the business of betting in the. kitchen, and she must be convicted.

Detective-sergeant Doyle stated that Mrs Quirk had carried on an extensive betting business prior to this action. Mr B. S. Irwin (for Mrs Quirk); It seems obvious that she was merely acting as an agent. The Detective Sergeant; Does it make any difference? Mr Irwin: I don’t say so in point of law, but it does as regards penalty. The licensee has taken this very much to heart, so much so that he has disposed of the hotel. It follows that this affair has been a serious loss to, the defendant, through her husband. Mr Bundle: I must take into consideration the fact that Mrs Quick is the wife of the licensee, and that this is a very serious matter. It would be improper for me not to impose a substantial penalty. Mrs Quirk will be convicted and fined £75 on the one count, and convicted and discharged on the other. CHARGES DISMISSED. Two charges preferred against Martin Quirk of permitting the hotel premises to be Used as a common gaming house and one of actually using the premises as a common gaming house were dismissed. His Worship remarked that the evidence in this particular case afforded a high ‘degree of Afispicion that the hotel was being used as a common gaming house, and that the defendant was a party to its,use, but he was unable to find that a prima facie .case had been established, and the charges would accordingly be dismissed.

SUGGESTION OF “ WELSHING.” Robert Peddar Crawford, a barman in the St. Hilda Hotel, was then convicted on one charge of using the bar as a common gaming house, a further similar charge being dismissed.

Mr Doyle said that his remarks about Mrs Quirk were equally applicable here. The police were satisfied that Crawford had been operating in the public bar on an extensive scale.. He was not only betting with all and sundry, but they had been informed that he did not pay his debts. His Worship (drily): Wouldn’t that discourage betting? *Mr Irwin; He is certainly not charged with “welshing.” Crawford was fined £25. COSTLY BREACH OF FAITH. William George Lindsay was convicted on two charges of using the bar of the Prince of Wales Hotel as a common gaming house. The detective sergeant said that Lindsay had been in charge of this bar for several years. In April, 1930, he was before the court for carrying on the business of a bookmaker and was fined £35. The following year he was fined £2O for laying totalisator odds. Convictions apparently had no deterrent effect on him.

Mr A. G. Neill appeared for Lindsay, and told the eonrt that he bore an excellent character and was a citizen of sterling worth. Unfortunately, there was a distinct temptation for a barman to assist customers by arranging bets for them, and in .Lindsay’s case ho worked on a very small commission basis. He was fifty-six years of age, and had already been discharged from his position. Mr Doyle; When he was before the court on the previous occasion he gave an undertaking that he would cease this betting business. Mr Neill: He carried that out for practically two years. It is a very easy matter to go into a hotel and ingratiate oneself with a barman and get him to arrange a bet.

Mr Bundle:.! cannot overlook the fact that Lindsay has been before the court on tiro occasions before for similar offences. He will be fined £6O on one charge and convicted and discharged on the other. When counsel suggested that Lindsay should be given time to pay, Mr Bundle remarked that in some cases where such a concession was granted the defendants had been forced into

tlxe same business to enable them tef pay the fine, Mr Neil!: That cannot be suggested here, sir, as he is out of a position. Would it not be better to place him on probation? it is not Lindsay so much, but his wife and child of v/hota 1 am thinking.

Mr Bundle: If this were his first offence it would perhaps be different, but lie gave an undertaking that he did not carry out, and he has only himself to thank. 1 shall allow a reasonable time—£lo forthwith, and £l2 10* a month until the total is paid. Jf he does not pay there is the alternative—ho must suffer his punishment. LICENSEE’S SON FINED. •Tack Hinchcliff was convicted on one charge of using the Prince of Wales bar as a common gaming house. On a second he was convicted and discharged. Mr Doyle stated that Hinchcliff had not come under the notice of the police prior to this case, but the betting material found indicated that he was carrying on business in an extensive manner. Lindsay was away on holiday at one time, and Hinchcliff took over from him and carried on these transactions. The material suggested very strongly that he must have been operating .before this case. Mr Irwin said that Hinchcliff was twenty-four years of age, and, being out of work, assisted his mother in tho hotel. His father had been ill and was away Any penalty imposed would fall on his mother, who was quite_ innocent in the matter. Hinchcliff was fined £2O.