POLLOCK PROSECUTED

NZ Truth, Issue 579, 22 July 1916, Page 10

POLLOCK PROSECUTED

Magistrate Bailey's Decision _____ i A Fine of £50 (From "Truth's" Christchurch Rep.) In the Christchurch v Magistrate's Court on Wednesday of last week, Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.. delivered reserved judgment m the case Police v. Pollock. "The defendant," said the Magistrate, "is charged under Section 2, sub-sec-tion 2 of the Gaming Amendment Act, 1910, that 'being a bookmaker, he did bet m a publio place as defined by Section 2 of the Gaming Act, 1908, to wit, a passenger train m transit." "The evidence goes to show that the defendant is a bookmaker, and was a i passenger by a special train from Christchurch to Aahburton on May 6. On that date there was a race meeting at Ashburton and the defendant DISTRIBUTED BETTING CARDS m one of the carriages. None of these cards havo bean produced, but I am satisfied that the cards were betting cards. Tho defendant was accompanied by a clerk and was seen to receive money from a person m the railway carriage, and thereupon the clerk made entries on tho pad he was carrying. The defendant was seen m the' next carriage speaking to people m tho carriage and the dork was seen making entries on his pad. The defendant has offered no explanation of these transactions and, taking all circumstances into consideration, I am satisfied that he was making bets. Counsel for the defendant urges that even if he wore « betting, tho defendant could not be I convicted as his actions are not of an ofj fence 'within the section which provides i'that 'Every bookmaker who beta .... i In any public place as defined by SecI tion 2 of the principal Act corns inits an offence.' 'Public place/ aa de- ! lined m the principal Act Includea Jnter ; alia 'all places wherever the public may j assemble, and whether money be paid [ by the public for admission to auch j places or not,' Counsol for the fle- ; fondant contends that a railway car- ■ riaye does not come within the deflnl- ; tion of a place, as it is not a place ■ where tho public "may assemble.' 1 jdo not agree with this contention. In ; .the case of Langrich v. Archer (10 i Q.B.D. 44), it was held that a railway : carriage while travelling on its Journey is within the definition of *an open } place to which the public have or are ; permitted to have uecess. 1 The dis- ; Unction between the wording of the Knjflish and the New Zealand Sections i In «o sllj;ht that I think it unimportant. ; Without the authority of the Kngllsh euae I should havo held that a railway : carriage travelling on Its Journey~or even before It had uctuaily .started, mho train were .standing at tho station prior to starting on a journey and people | hud n.sHombled m v, | WAS A 'PUBLIC PLACE* i within the definition. The object of the . Act seems aimed at stopping betting m any place where there 18 a public i concourse of people. Tho defendant I will bo convicted." \ Chter- detective: Herbert, In reply to Uie S.M., said Pollock had been con- ' victetl Jn 191-1 of frequenting a street ; for the purpose of betting, and on that 'occasion wus fined* £2o. A linf of £50 and cost* wan InfllcNul, | rind tin- charge of gambling on a train was withdrawn.