CHINESE GAMBLING.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 186, 24 July 1911, Page 5

CHINESE GAMBLING.

j THE NAPIER CASES. MR S. E. MCCARTHY’S JUDGMENT. ; At the Napier Police Court this (morning. Mr. S. E. McCarthy, S.M. I gave judgment in the Chinese garni ! bling cases. Inspector Dwyer appeared for i the police and Mr. Dolan for the ’ defendent, Ah On. ■ In the course of his judgment, 1 after reviewing the evidence given when the case was heard, Mr. Mc- ’ C'arthy said : — i The defenent admitted that those ; in his house on the 9th July had I been playing a game of dice and ■ dominoes. He said, however, it i was not for money, but only to pass ; the time. I accept the statement ; that there had been playing, bnt, ’ in view of the surrounding circumi stances,. I am compelled to reject (the explanation that there had been ! no playing for money.

The complaint, pursuant to I which the warrant was issued contained no allegation on oath that the premises, the subject of the information, were commonly reported and believed by the complainant to be kept as a common gaming house, as is required by section 3 lof the principal act. There was, (therefore, no jurisdiction for the I justice to issue the warrant, and : section 7 does not apply. At the I conclusion of defendent’s case I inj timated my opinion the only ques- ; tion for consideration was whether ’ defendant had been brought under (section 7. On reconsidering II am of oinion, for reasons | that will hereafter appear, that this ! opinion is ill-founded. It will be | necessary t-o determine (1) Whether I defendent’s premises were, on the (day in question, being kept as a ( common gaming house ; (2) whether ; seeing the warrant was issued with ! out jurisdiction, the evidence obi tained by the entry pursuant there(to is admissible against the defen- ! dant. With regard to the 1 first question, apart from our ’ own Gaming Act, a common gaming house is defined to ; be “A house in which a large nnm- ; ber of persons are invited habitualI ly to congregate for the purpose of (gambling.” The term “large” must 'be considered in connection with I the context. The learned Judge in i Jenks V. Turpin points out that to “no gaming house is the public at I large invited to go without restric- : tion of some sort or another.” In ; that case the club -was limited to 500. Here the class visiting the de- ■ feudent’s house was limited to ! those of the Chinese race, of whom . there are nothing like 500 in the Hawke’s Bay Provincial District, i and 20 was a not inconsiderable (portion of the Chinese popula■'tion of Napier and the surrounding ■districts. Very much greater than ; 500 was to the whole, population of (London in the year 1884. when i Jenko v. Turpin was decided. Fur- ; ther, the keeping open of a house | for gaming till the early hours of | the morning, in the neighbourhood lin which defendant’s house was I situate, constituted a public nuisI ance. But, again, those resorting i to defendant’s premises were play- ; ing with dice and dominoes for ( money, and, on a review of the Eng- ; lish Statutes in force in the Do- ' minion, every game of dice, except j backgammon, is made an unlawful I game. The men resorting to defend(ant premises were not playing ( backgammon. The evidence estab- | lishes that the resorting of the play- | ers to defendant’s place was not j casual, but habitual. The fact that J this resorting only lasted during a , fortnight, is accounted for by the ' unexpected entry of the police. Had ■ that not taken place the resorting i would have gone on indefinitely. ’ Defendant will be convicted and i fined £2O and ordered to pay the ; costs, in default one month’s imI prisonment with hard labour. ' The costs amounted to £3/5/2 and ; a month was allowed to find the (money.

Mr. Dolan asked the amount of security required in the case of an appeal and the amount was fixed at £35. Cases against the other Chinamen were held over for a week.