GAMING CHARGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26717, 11 March 1948, Page 2

GAMING CHARGES

HILLSIDE EMPLOYEES IN COURT FINE IMPOSED FOR BETTING Police investigations into complaints of the prevalence of gambling at the Hillside Workshops led to the appearance in the City Police Court yesterday morning of two employees from the Workshops charged with offences against the Gaming Act. Norman Henry Campbell, of Mosgiel, who was represented by Mr A. J. H. Jeavons, was fined £7 10s by Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., for be.ting with a bookmaker, and Henry Joseph Montgomery (Mr A G. Neill) was charged with taking part in a lottery. The latter case was adjourned until this morning. In prosecuting Campbell, Chief Detective Hall said that, when questioned about his connection with gambling at the Hukide Workshops, the defendant produced betting slips and admitted receiving commissions from a bookmaker. He admitted bet.ing transactions amounting to 4.1* 15s on the day in question. Mr Jeavons said that it was clear that the prosecution was brought for the special purpose of putting an end to the gambling evil at Hillside. He had never before seen a man charged with betting with a bookmaker and if the law were enforced in this respect there would be thousands of citizens in every town before the courts. The defendant was in court because of his own candour with the police. Campbell maintained that he could afford to bet as his financial position was sound. If the police wanted to stamp out betting, Mr Jeavons submitted there were other ways of doing it. Each pay day four men were detailed to stand by the pay sheets at Hillside and sell lottery tickets for the workshops welfare fund. These men spent two hours and ahalf doing this at the country s expense, and with the permission of the management He produced one of the tickets habitually sold at the workshops. Mr Bundle: Is that a lottery ticket? Chief Detective Hall: It is a lottery ticket, but it is not an illegal one. Mr Bundle: Whether or not it is legal It seems that there is a great deal of hypocrisy over these art unions and ra hi le |pite of counsel’s submissions, however, the position was that if any man chose to make bets in defiance of the law he must be prepared to pay the penalty, said Mr Bundle. If certain art unions were encouraged and men m the workshops were offered tickets for sale it was a reprehensible state of affairs, but the defendant was not before the court merely for making a bet, but for deliberately breaking the law over a long period. His Worship then imposed a fine of £7 lus. In the case against Montgomery, Detective J. C. Russell described how he had found the defendant in possession of a book containing betting records, a doubles chart, and a number of Picks tickets. It was common knowledge that these tickets were sold for Is and that the winnfng ticket was worth £2O to the holder. The winning number coincided with the last three figures of the amount of money invested in the totalisator at specified race m stage the case was adjourned until to-day.