GAMING HOUSE CHARGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14971, 19 April 1912, Page 5

GAMING HOUSE CHARGES.

PRINCIPALS AND OTHERS. •THE FINES TOTAL £457. ' BOOKMAKER AND THE LAW. Tin: charge against Loftie Richards and John Weston, that they had kept certain premises at No. 9, British. Buildings, for the purposes of betting, was the first of a large number of " betting cases," as they are now called, to come before Mr. F. V. Frazcr, S.M., yesterday at the Police Court. Sub-Inspector Hendrey conducted the- prosecution, and Mr. T. Cotter, K.C., appeared for the defendants. Mr. Cotter said tho defendants pleaded guilty, but ho wished to make a few remarks with reference to the matter. Ho wished to point out that bookmaking was practically recognised under the Gaming Act. The employment of a bookmaker was not illegal; neither was tho fact of a person making a bet either with another person or with a bookmaker. In fact, the Gaming Act, 1908, recognised that bookmaking was a lawful employment. Section 2 of that Act read as follows : — " In this Act, if not inconjiistent with the context, 'bookmaker' means any person who acts or carries on business as a bookmaker or turf commission agent, or who gains, or endeavours to gain, his livelihood wholly or partly by betting or making wagers, and includes a bookmaker's clerk or agent;" and section 34 said that "every racing club which is authorised to use the totalisator shall, from time to time, on tho application of any person who is,.- in the opinion of the committee or other managing body of such club, a fit and proper person to' be so licensed, grant a license to such person to enter on any racecourse used or occupied by such club, and there to carry on business as a bookmaker." The Legislature seemed to have placed bookmakers in a very peculiar position. They had not declared that bookmaking was illegal, but by a negative provision they had said, "You shall not carry on your business there, and you shall not bet with infants," but they had not said, "You shall not bet with any person." Counsel submitted that if a bookmaker went into a private house and made a wager thero was no offence on the part of either person. It was not alleged that either of itho defendants had done any--1 thing, otherwise than carry on their bookmaking business, irrespective of the provisions of the law. It was not charged that thero had been anything unfair, such as "welshing" or, cheating in connection with their dealings. .The Act provided, practically, that if a bookmaker wished to make a bet with A.8., and did so in A.B.'s office, there would be no offence; but if a bookmaker wished to keep the streets clear, and opened a private office, and A.B. came in to make a wager with him, then an offence was committed. There were no implements of gaming kept in defendants' office it Was simply an office, in which persons who had won their wagers received their money, and those who wagered paid their stakes. Three-Fourths oi Maximum Pine. His Worship said it was quite clear that the Legislature had provided that bookmakers should not bet in the streets or keep offices for the purpose of betting, and the law, although it had its anomalies, was quite clear on that point. The nwxi-mumf-fine was £100; but there was nothing more serious in the charge than that for a considerable time the defendants had been carrying on this business, and no suggestion liad been made that there had been anything unfair or underhand in their dealings with their clients. Therefore, His Worship said he had decided to make a considerable reduction from the maximum penalty in the -fines. imposed. Defendants were fined £75 each, with costs. Charles Taylor, Robert Porter, and Daniel Twohill, whose cases were practically parallel with those of Richards and Weston, were similarly dealt with, fines of £75, with costs, being imposed in each case. A young fellow, of respectable appearance, named Leonard Andrews, was charged with assisting in the keeping of a common gaming house. Mr. Cotter, K.C., said this defendant was merely a clerk in th© employment of the defendants Richards and Weston. His Worship said the penalty should be very much leas than that imposed in regard to his employers, as this defendant's interest in the business was necessarily a small one, and his profits much less than those of the principals concerned in tho matter. A fine of £25, with costs, was imposed. The following persons, who admitted that they had been found in common gaming rooms on April 9, were fined in the amounts stated: Catherine Bruce £1, Jane Purchas £1, Chas. Barnes £1 Jas. Williamson £1, Thos. Cleat £1, Patk. Lyndsey £1, Danl. Lyndsay £1, Palk. Smith £1, Thos. Cameron Simpson £1, Chas. Gilbert £1, Chas. Smith £1, Wm. Groves £1, Chris. Jno. Geraghy £1, Farquhar Finlayson £1, Frank Grimstead £1, Clifford Brierly £1, Chas. Morley £1, Ernest Buckney £1, Percy Brierly £2, Herbert Langton £1, Fredk. Lucas £1, Geo. Bond £1, Wm. Andrews £1, Chas. Guird £1, Albert Bond £1, Jack Cvitonovich £1, Jas. Veycich £1, Harry Wil-. Hams £5, Fredk. Crane £3, Geo. Newman £5, Edward Chitharn £5, Wilfrid Jas. Lane £1, Frank Pierce £1, Jos. Kean £1, Thos, Hornsley £1, Percival Jackson £1, Jas. Walters £1, Denis Oliver Poison £1, Wm. Walters £1, ,Wm. Gore £1, Emma Snedden £1. The total amount of the fines was £457. Defended Oases. William Tidyman pleaded not guilty to a charge of having been in Daniel Twohill's office on Aprd 9, for the purpose of wagering. The witnesses for the police said that when accused was arrested he said he had only come there for the purpose of bailing Twohill out, as he knew" all about the raid which the police had made on the bookmakers. In evidence tho fondant swore that he had read in the paper all about the raid, and came to the office accompanied by a friend purposely to bail Daniel Twohill, who was an old friend. His Worship said it was very improbable that, knowing of the action of the police, a man should put his head into the lion's mouth. The information was dismissed. Mr. A. E. Skelton appeared for the defendant.

A middle-aged man named Martin Taylor, for whom Dr. Bamlord appeared, was similarly charged. Ho paid he had gone to the office kept by Daniel Twohill on April 9 for the purpose of inquiring as to the state of Mrs. Twohill's health, as he was an old friend. When he knocked at tho door it was opened by a, plain clothes constable, who pulled him by the sleeve, saying, " Come in Mr. Taylor," and as soon as ho was inside he was arrested on a charge of being found in a common gaming house. Defendant swore that he had never mado a wager with Twohill in his life. The magistrate found that the information given by defendant was credible, and the information was dismissed. John Ryan, a licensed billiardroom proprietor, whose place of business is in Vulcan Lano, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having used his'premises as a common gaming house. Mr. W. E., Hacketfc appeared for tho defence. The case for the police' was that when they raided the rooms they found a number of persona there who were not visiting tho rooms for the purpose of playing the game, but for betting. When . the defendant was searched a number of papers having reference to betting matters were found in his possession, and in a cupboard other documents of a, similar character were found, and in explanation he said the cupboard in question was used by bookmakers, who visited the bUliardrooin. The taking of evidence was not concluded when the Court adjourned. Innocents. Five young fellows, who admitted that they had been found in tho billiardroom when it was raided by the police, proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate that they had gone there for the purpose of playing the game, arid not to make wagers. The informations against them were dismissed, and costs were given in their favour.