Gaming in a Hotel.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume IX, Issue 1198, 24 February 1902, Page 4

Gaming in a Hotel.

Sprcial to thb Times,

Christchurch, February 19. Au appeal case of cons ; derable interest to hotelkeepers was decided here to day. His Honor fMr Justice Denniston), iu giving judgement said it had been proved on the hearing that Constable Pratt entered an hotel at Lyttelton, of which the defendant Bailey was the licensee, on Sunday, September 22nd, 1901, and found Baiiev, junr., and a •nan named Hamilton, engaged in play* ing billiards. Two other men, residents of Christchurch, were also in the billiard-room. Bailey, the licensee, was on the premises at the time and came into the billiard room while the constable was there, stopped the playing and remonstrated With his son. There was no evidence that the defendant had had knowledge of the billiards being played, but the Magistrate hud held that he failed to take reasonable steps to prevent this being done. The Magb* trato had not stated that the failure to take such steps had been of a character to amount to connivance, and in the absence of a specific find ng, his honor did not think himself justified in assuming this against the deiendunt. The short question to bo decided was, therefore whether the neglect t.o take reasonable precautions to prevent billiardnlaving during prol ibited hours was in itself, in the absence of connivance. •• allowing ” such playing. His Honor mentioned a number of cases bearing upon the point in dispute. If the Magistrate had m the e <si found that the want of reasonable precaution had amounted to wi'ful avoidance of precautions with the intention of facilitating gaming in fo ‘bidden hours, such a finding would, in his Honor's opinion, have justified a conviction. Failing to take reasonable steps amounted only to negligence or carelessness, which w F as not i" itself evidence or connivance, or had not be* n the means of giving a person in charge the opportunity to connive at a breach of the law, justified a conviction tor allowing gaming ho would in his opirion be extending the liability beyond the principle established by previous authority. He therefore upheld Bailey’s appoal, aud quashed the coQviciion.