THE GAMING ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20023, 14 February 1927, Page 3

THE GAMING ACT.

CONVICTIONS IN POLICE COURT. HEAVY PENALTIES IMPOSED. Two convictions under the Gaming Act were recorded in Hie Police Court on Saturday morning before Mr J. R. P>nrtholomc'w, S.M. Heavy lines wore imposed in each case. Gustave Johnson was lined £IOO for carrying on business as a bookmaker, arid John Erskino was fined £3O for dealing with bookmakers. Gustavo Johnson appeared in answer (o a charge of being in Princes street; on hehruaiy 11 for the purpo-es of betting. Mr A (1. Neil! appeared for ihe accused, who pleaded guilty. Chief Detective Cameron represented the police. The Chief Detective said that the accused had admit.led that lie was in the street for the purpose of betting. lie had handed' over his books, which did not disclose the extent of his lietting transactions. -Accused had just opened a double for Satnrday’a races. Ho was an old ha ml at the game, having been at it six years. lie wa- in a tair way of business. lie had been m court before on similar charges, having been fined £SO in May, 1921. Mr Neill's plea for leniency was based on accused’s frankin'.-- throughout the case. Accused had been in and out of hospital for several years, and had been more or less a, cripple since lie was 16 years old. Ho did not depend upon hookmnking for his li’clihood. He had one or two other interests. The Magistrate said the accuser! mint he treated as a persistent olVender. He had been lined heavily before, but this lime tin' penalty would have to lie considerably increased. He would be lined £IOO, and costs (10s). When .Mr Neill asked for a week to pay the fine, ilio chief detective said he had no objection as hr was cpiito sure it was just a matter of accused going to the ’ • k and withdrawing the money John Krskiuc was charged with dealing with bookmakers, — Mr A. G. Neill appeared for accused, and the eld' r detective for the police.—Accused pleaded guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. The Chief Detective said defendant was a i■nnirnisjdon agent, who received money from investors on behalf of bookmakers. In nine months, from November, 102.5. to August, 1926. accused received from one individual the -urn of £2104 in cheques. This was put through bookmakers’ hands. The, accused was a decent sort of man otherwise. Mr Neill sought In point out the many disadvantages under which his client worked, hut the mamst rate suggested that for all the disadvantages there must bn corresponding advantages. A fine of £39 ami costs MOs) was imposed. A fortnight was allowed accused to find (he money