THE GAMING ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3994, 30 September 1930, Page 49

THE GAMING ACT.

BOOKMAKER FINED £5O. PALMERSTON N., September 23. Charged with using a dwelling in Pascal street as a common gaming house, Alfred Dewar pleaded guilty and was fined £5O. The police stated that’defendant had been betting for some years, and took as much as £5O on the days of important meetings.

TWO HAIRDRESSERS FINED. WELLINGTON, September 23. A story by Frank London, aged 29, hairdresser, that he had merely obliged his customers by accepting bets from them and “ re-setting ” the money with bookmakers without receiving any commission was rejected by Mr E. Page, S.M., in the Police Court to-day, the accused being fined £lOO for keeping a common ganiing house at 58 Hobart street, Miramar. William James, aged 20, hairdresser, was fined £5 for assisting in the conduct of the house.

Police Constables Trask and Phillips gave evidence of hearing betting talk while having a shave. Subsequently various bets were laid.

Detective Bayliss said he visited the shop on September 6 with Detective Sergeant Holmes, when London admitted taking bets which, he said, he passed on to a bookmaker. An anonymous complaint had been made that the shop was being used as a common gaming house. A marked pound note was among London’s cash. Double charts and race cards were also found. x

For the defence, Mr Perry submitted that the shop could not be defined as a common gaming house as betting was not the regular business and the money was only being accepted to oblige customers and passed on to a bookmaker. The accused gave evidence in support. The magistrate said it had been abundantly proved that the'aceused London had carried on a betting business. Regarding the submission that London had acted as an agent for his customers, that relied for support on London’s uncorroborated evidence. He had declined to disclose the name of the bookmaker and had produced no books of any sort. Looking at the whole of the facts a reasonable and proper interpretation was that London was bookmaking either on his own account or in collaboration with other bookmakers as was done in many cases. The accused were each given 14 days in which to pay the fines. The default was fixed at three months’ imprisonment in the case of London and one month in the case of James.