WATERFRONT NUISANCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8794, 25 July 1914, Page 13

WATERFRONT NUISANCE

EXPENSIVE RECREATION HAZARDS PLAYER FINED £lO OR THREE MONTHS’ GAOL. There was a largo attendance of wharf habitues in tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday, alien Bert Murray was charged with being a rogue and a vagabond, in that he played a game of chance, to wit, hazards, upon tho Glasgow wharf. Accused, who w*as represented by Mr J. F. W. Dickson, pleaded not guilty. Inspector Hendrcy said that defendant was charged under sub-section• E of section of of tho Police Offences Act, which provided that “every person shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond within the meaning of tho Act, and bo liable to imprisonment with hard labour for any term not exceeding one year, who plays or bets in any public place, at any game or protended game of chance.” Tho facts wore, continued Inspector Hendrey, that on Tuesday last the defendant and a number of others were seen playing with dice by two constables, who also sawmoney changing hands. The constables gave chaso to tho accused, who ran away when ho saw them. Ho was caught, however,’ and admitted that he had been playing a game of chance for money. Accused was a nuisance on tho waterfront. Fines did not appear to do any good, and the inspector asked His Worship to impose a substantial term of imprisonment to see whether that would act as a deterrent. A CHASE AND A CAPTURE. Constable Isbistcr said that in company with Constable Petty, ho had gone to the King’s wharf and walked down tho waterfront towards Glasgow wharf; on tho way, he noticed _ a group of six or seven - men throwing dice. Tho men included tho accused, whom witness saw throwing dice several times. ' When witness camo within twenty yards of tho players, they observed him and dispersed. Witness returned to the King’s wharf, but on looking back ho saw tho men again congregate. So, lie made a detour around Waterloo quay, and succeeded in getting quite close to them unobserved. Witness again saw the accused throw dice; he also saw the accused handle money. When witness made to arrest him, ho started to run down the Glasgow wharf. Tho others also ran. Witness took possession of ono of the dice, which ho produced. Ho eventually caught Murray on the outer toe of tho Glasgow wharf, and when ho arrested him witness said, “What were you running away for? You were playing for money P” Accused replied, “Yes, you caught me at it all right.” ■ , To Mr Dickson; Tho reason why he did not arrest the accused tho first time ho saw him playing, was that ho wanted to catch him in the act, and on the first occasion ho was too faraway to do this. Others were throwing tho dice also, but witness made for the accused only. He saw money being handled —silver and coppers. It was not likely that they were playing only for halfpennies! When the accused was searched at tho police station, ho only had about five shillings upon him. Constable Petty gave corroborative evidence. “BIGGEST WASTER ON THE WHARF.” Archibald Mnnro, wharfinger, said accused worked occasionally on the waterfront—hut only occasionally. Witness had noticed him playing hazards on the wharf several times, and had cautioned him- Accused was tho worst on' the wharf, for playing hazards. “Comparatively speaking, he* is one. of the biggest- wasters on the wharf,” witness added. Accused never looked for work; at any rate; ho did so very seldom. Accused was the worst of about a dozen on the wharf who played the game. As far as witness could say, there was a “banker” in the game. “WOULD MAKE HIM SUFFER.” Constable Johnston stated that he had been doing special duty on the wharf for about six months. Ho knew the accused, but only on ono occasion had’ he seen him present himself for labour. As far as witness knew, tho accused frequented the wharf only for the purpose of playing hazards. Witness had himself warned him twice for playing, but ho denied having told the accused “that he would make him suffer when he got him in court.” COUNSEL’S COMMENT. Mr Dickson said that ’ m this case they had a respectable man charged with being a rogue and vagabond. There were two ways of laying an information of this kind, but the police had adopted an improper procedure and brought the more serious charge. It was not fair for the police to bring this man up oh the major charge, on tho first occasion upon which he was before the court. The man had during tho last six months earned £ls lis 9d at the New Zealand Shipping Company, and had received from Messrs Gannaway and Co. £ls 15s 9d, and various amounts for sundry jobs, making a total of £SB 7s 9d for the six months. This was not bad considering that the accused was not a preference man. Counsel suggested that the benefits of the First Offenders’ Act be Accorded accused and that he be merely convicted and discharged. He submitted that His Worship should not impose a term of imprisonment on the first time an accused person was before the court. Mr Cooper said the evidence was overwhelmingly against the accused, who had been repeatedly warned. Games of chance were very hard to detect, and very hard to get to court. “This sort of thing inust.be put down-.” said His Worship. “I will convict accused and impose a fine of £lO, in-de-fault throe months’ imprisonment.” A week was allowed in which to find the money.