ALLEGED CARDSHARPERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIX, 1 February 1936, Page 7

ALLEGED CARDSHARPERS

REPORTED LOSS OF £IO,OOO A MAYFAIR CARD PARTY (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) LONDON, 30th Januayr. As a sequel to a Mayfair card party, where a liimncier is alleged (o have lost £IO,OOO to card-sharpers, the King’s Bench Court was crowded with hundreds of fashionably-dressed people. Keith Hugh Williams, company promoter, sued Jack Trevor, organiser of a charity card party at Sunderland House in December, 1934, for £IO,O'C*J damages for breach of warranty, and, alternatively, negligence and breach of duty. The defence denied the allegations. -

Sir William Jowitt, for Williams, said that unless these parties where baccarat and clieinin de fer were played were most carefully supervised, they were occasions on which crooks and cardsharpers descended like vultures oil a. corpse. The names of Lord Ilindlip and Lady Cleveland appeared on the invitation Williams received. Trevor had the clearest warning of odd happenings at such parties, as when iie asked certain people to act as croupiers Lord Hindlip, before the party, rang him up saying that when three of the suggested croupiers, after an earlier party, went to a lavatory cards, mostly eights and nines, which are most valuable in baccarat, fell from their pockets. Sir William Jowitt said one of the croupiers at Sunderland House was a mail Lord Hindlip had warned Trevor against. Although it had been emphasised that the guests would he most carefully supervised, lie said, they included Hymie Davis who, Sir William alleged, had been warned off dog-racing courses, also Mr Elliott, who was a croupier despite 13 County Court summonses against him. Sit- William said that Williams saw Lord Hindlip take over the croupiership from Elliott, whereupon it was suggested that the cards should bo counted. This was done, and they were 32 short. When Williams was about to take the hank at baccarat lie wanted to shuffle as is customary, hut a croupier named Abrahams demurred. Williams noted a man named Saville was remarkably lucky. Williams went to the cash desk and inquired regarding him, and was assured that he was a wealthy racehorse owner and above suspicion. Williams accordingly played until he lost about £IO,OOO. He rose from the table and made out a cheque for that amount He had previously lost £IOOO worth of counters. Williams late r stopped his cheque, hut eventually thought it better to pay it and bring an action to reveal the happenings at parties. Subsequent inquiries showed that Saville was a bankrupt and his discharge had been suspended because lie allegedly filed a misleading statement and also used clients’ money. Another croupier was named Solomons, who, Sir William Jowitt alleged, was a convicted thief. Williams, in evidence, said: “When I was hanker and Abrahams croupier, .eights and .lines phenomenally turned up against the bank.” Williams, cross-examined hy Sir Patrick Hastings, said he went bankrupt in 1931 and made between £120,000 and £200,000 in 1932 owing to buying 4,000,000 gold-mine shares at one farthing each. He denied Sir Patrick s suggestion that lie was a big gambler, also a suggestion that only himself and his 1 friends got gold from the company, adding that Consolidated Goldfields of South Airica. also the market, knew how much gold was being got out of the mine.-

JUDGMENT FOR TREVOR (Received Ist February, 10.20 a.m.) LONDON, 31st January. The Court was packed oil the resumption of the gambling case. Williams gave evidence that Sir Alfred Butt, who was banker, quitted the game with £6OOO or £7OOO after refusing to allow witness to stake £SOOO on a certain car. Witness declared that Abrahams, Saville and Solomons cheated him. Three times he put £IOOO oil the turn of a card, and lost two and won one. He did not think anyone else was playing so high. He lost £11,200. His friends lost several thousands. Mi' Justice Finlay found no evidence of a contract or warranty between plaintiff and defendant. A very serious risk at such a party was the probability of the presence of a small element of cardsharpers, but there was no evidence that reasonable steps were not taken to exclude them. No damage was disclosed arising from breach of duty. Mr Justice Finlay withdrew the case from the jury and gave judgment for Trevor with costs. Trevor told a reporter that he would never again associate himself with gambling parties for charity.