KEEPING A GAMING HOUSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17120, 27 September 1917, Page 7

KEEPING A GAMING HOUSE

ALBERT B. HALL CONVICTED. FINE OF £95 IMPOSED. In the Cfity Police Court, before Mr H. A. Young, S-M., yesterday, Albert Brodio Hall was charged with, keeping his tobacconist's shop ill High street as a common gaming house. Mabel Vencssa Mairhead ■was charged with assisting to conduct a common gaming house. A plea of guilty was entered in each case.

Detective-sergeant Kcmp _ said tho malo defendant was a tobacconist carrying on business in High street, and ho had been there for the past two years and a-hali. During two yeaxs of this period he had been suspected of betting, but no definite information was procurable until Tuesday, •when, acting on certain information in their possession, tho detectives searched defendant's premises, and afterwards arrested him and his assistant. An examination of his books showed that ho had done a considerable volume of business, most of which ■was totalisator and doublo betting. From the papers secured were publications setting forth tho dividends paid at tho Otaki and Ashburton race meetings, and he had also cards printed in anticipation of the Gont]dino meeting. Ho had two agents in the city—at the north and south end respectively,—each of whom had done a considerable amount of business. The south end agent on the first day of the O.taki meeting took £39 in bets and on the second £66, while the north end agent took £19 15s on the first day of this meeting and about £19 the second day. The latter's commission amounted to £3 17s 6d, and it ■would be readily understood that the south end agent made much more. Tho common gaming house was not confined to tho shop alone, but his residence was also used for a similar purpose, and when defendant was taking bets at his house his assistant (Miss Muirtiead) conducted the business at tne shop. Defendant was a married man with three children. What he desired to stress was tho extensive naturo of the business, and also the fact that it was not confined to his shop. In regard to tho female defendant, who had been employed by Hall for about two years at 30s a week, and during that time nad taken bets over tho telephone, ho was auite satisfied that she received no commission from any bets, and was merely there as shop assistant and clerk. She was a woman of good character. Mr Hanlon, for defendants, said it was a fact that Hall conducted a tobacconist shop, and in conjunction with that business, which he had carried on for years, he had combined the business of bookmaking for 18 months or thereabouts. It might be quite correct to say that ho had done a considerable amount of business, but a perusal of the books disclosed the fact that Hall had lost something like £300, so it was not fair to suggest, by way of aggravating the offenoe, that he had made a considerable amount of profit out of the business. He stated advisedly that the transactions in these books disclosed a loss of something like £300. He hoped the court would take into consideration that, so far as Hall was concerned, ho gave no difficulty to the police at all, and openly placed all the information they wanted before them; and he had not attempted to bolster up a case by coming- to the court and perjuring himself or by getting anyone else to do it for him. The other defendant was a highly respectable young woman, and acted as Hall's assistant at a wage of 30s a week. She received no benefit from the messages or investments she took over the telephone. She had a returned soldier brother, another brother at the front, and one at present in camp. She assisted her mother. It was unfair to suggest that because she took bets over tne telephone she recognised the gravity of carrying on a gaming house. He submitted that in her case only a nominal penalty should be imposed, and also asked the court to deal leniently with the male defendant, as this was the first time he had been before the court.

The Magistrate said each defendant was liable to a fine of £100, or three months' imprisonment without the option of a fine. During the last year or two convictions imposed in different parts of New Zealand under the Gaming Act had been followed by substantial penalties. It was iinposBible, and almost unfair, in caees of this kind to suggest that defendant's profits did not justify them in taking all these risks. The question really was whether the male defendant should bo fined or sent to gaol. Ho had, however, decided to give him the option of paying a fine for the reason that he had pleaded guilty and because of the circumstances set out. If, however, he came before him ajjain he need not expect- to be let off with a fine. He would be fined _ £95, with costs (7s). So far as the assistant was concerned, she must have known that the business was carried on in contravention of the Gaming Act. There were no reasons for her to stay in the position. He took it that the malo defendant would pay her fine, which would be one of £5, with costs (7s).