PAK-A-POO

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11255, 6 July 1922, Page 2

PAK-A-POO

APPEALS DISMISSED CONVICTIONS AGAINST CHINESE UPHELD. SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS. The judgments of Their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr Justice Hosking, in the Supreme Court, were delivered yesterday in connection with the alleged pak-a-poo gaming-house cases, appealing against the fines and convictions inflicted. i_n the Magistrate's Court, by Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M. The apj ’hints, Young Suey and Git Ton {two Niinese), were represented 'by Mr* E. G. Jellicoe, Mr P. S. K. Macaesey, Crown Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent, Detective T. E. Holmes. The case was heard before Their Honours on June 19tb, 20th, and 21st last, and considerable technical evidence was then produced in support of the appeals against the- convictions. In his review of the case, when delivering judgment, His Honour the Chief Justice found as follows: — ACTS AMENDED. : There were two statutes passed amending the Gaming Act in 1885 and 1894, but they do not affect the provisions dealing with gaming houses. Under the first subdivision of the 1881 Act and before the 1907 Act many cases were decided, and these have been quoted at length during the argument in the present case. In 1907 an amendment was made in the statute, and section 13 provided as follows ‘‘Every house, office, room, or place - occupied, kept, or used for the purposes of an illegal lottery or a proposed illegal lottery (whether the said lot--1 tery is promoted in New Zealand or elsewhere) shall he deemed and taken to be a common gaming house within the provisions of the Gaming Acts." WAS HOUSE USED? Under this appeal the question is, was tiiere any evidence that the house of the appellant was. used for the purposes of pak-a-poo ? If there was any reasonable evidence that showed that the house was so used, the conviction must ‘be affirmed and the appeal on this ground dismissed. What, then, was the evidence ? First, the evidence was that the house was used for the sale of tickets for pak-a-poo; it was used for the keeping and storing of tickets, about 2000 unused tickets and a large number that had been used being found within the house, and there were instruments for stamping tickets, etc. POLICE EVIDENCE. On February 17th Constable. Tongue visited the house on two occasions and purchased pak-a-poo tickets • the accused was in the house checking tickets, and men not Chinese were also in the room. The room was not furnished for any purpose save for keeping tickets and selling them. It was not a bedroom, it was not a sitting- 1 room; it was eiraply used as a pak-a-poo office. Then, on February 24th, the evidence was that a search warrant which had been properly issued after a sworn information, was executed by the police, and the exhibits which I have referred to, and which were also shown in . the court herej were a very large number of pak-a-poo tickets, etc. “A LOTTERY EXISTED.” The magistrate, however, in his statement of the case, says—and we are bound by his statements—that, in convicting the accused, he determined the case on the evidence of what occurred cm February 24th, no doubt eouplect with the fact that tickets had been sold for pak-a-poo some days before, showing that there was a scheme or lottery in existence, and it is clear that we are bound by his decision on the facts as this is not a general appeal—only on a point of law. So far as the rule nisi was concerned for oertiorari that cannot be successful unless it could be shown that the magistrate had acted without jurisdiction. There is not a tittle of evidence showing that he had not jurisdiction, and want of , arisdiction must be shown before the rule could be successful. APPEALS DISMISSED. I am, therefore* of opinion that the appeals must all be dismissed, and also the rules refused. This wilt also ap ply to Ah Tong's case, which was argued on similar grounds. As to costs, Young Suey must pay for the three appeals £5 and for rule £5, in all £10; and Ah Tong mush, for appeal and rule, also pay £lO, MR JUSTICE HOSKING'S FINDING. The judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Hosking was in agreement that tho appeals against the convictions should be dismissed and the rule nisi for a certiorari discharged. His Honour said:—“The first con viction -of user of the premises as a common gaming-house was for user on February 24th. The information charged the user as on the 10th and 24th and divers days between. The information standing as it does, and the conviction being only for the 24th, I agree that this woupld be fatal to a further charge of the like user of the premises on any other day during the period stated in tho information. But the other are in respect of different offences—namely, that of .selling tickets within section 41 (b) and on other days than tho 24-th. The evidence as to the happenings on the other days was relevant to the question of user. His Honour the Chief Justice has sufficiently referred to the authorities on the subject. “The point as to the warrant and its effect was sufficiently disposed of in the course of the argument. I also agree that the appeal and rule nisi iu Git Ton's case should be disposed of as'the Chief Justice proposes.”