SHARP PRACTICE ALLEGED.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13171, 1 February 1936, Page 6

SHARP PRACTICE ALLEGED.

SECOND EDITION

MAYFAIR CARD PARTY. COURT ACTION IN ENGLAND. United Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, January 30. As a sequel to a Mayfair card party where a financier is alleged to have lost £IO,OOO to card-sharpers, the King's Bench Court was crowded with hundreds of fashionablydressed people. Keith Hugh Williams. a company promoter, sued Jack Trevor, the organiser of a charity card party at Sunderland House on December, 1934, for £IO,OOO damages for a breach of warranty; alternatively, for negligence or breach of duty. The defence denied the allegations. Sir William Jowitt, for Williams, said that,-, unless these parties, where baccarat and chemin de fer were played, were most carefully supervised, they were occasions on which crooks and card-sharpers could descend like vultures on a corpse. The names of Lord Hindlip and Lady Cleveland appeared on the invitation that Williams received. Trevor had the clearest warning of odd happenings at such parties as, when he asked certain people to act as croupiers, Lord Hindlip before the party rang him up saying that, when three of the suggested croupiers, after an earlier party, went to the lavatory, cards, mostly eights and nines, which are the most valuable in baccarat, fell from their pockets. Sir William Jowitt said said one of the croupiers at Sunderland House was a man Lord Hindlip warned Trevor against. Although it had been emphasised that the guests would be most carefully supervised, thev included Hymie Davis, who, Sir W illiam Jowitt alleged, had been warned off dog-racing courses ; also a man named Elliott, who was a croupier despite 13 County Court summonses against him.

Sir William Jowitt said Williams saw Lord Hindlip take over the eroupiership from Elliott, whereupon it was suggested that the cards should be couuted. This was done and they were 32 short. When Williams was about to take the bank at baccarat, he wanted to shuffle, as is customary, but a croupier named Abrahams demurred. Williams noted that a man named Saville was remarkably lucky, aud went to the cash-desk and inquired regarding him. He was assured he was a wealthy racehorse owner and above suspicion. Williams accordingly played until he lost about £IO,OOO. He then rose ffrom the table and made out a cheque for that amount He had previously lost £IOOO worth of counters. Williams later stopped the cheque, but eventually thought he had better pay it and bring an action to reveal the happenings at the parties. Subsequent inquiries showed that Saville 7 s bankruptcy discharge had been suspended because ho allegedly filed a misleading statement and also used a client, s money. Another croupier was named Solomons, who. Sir William Jowitt alleged, was a convicted thief.

Williams gave evidence that, when he was banker and Abrahams croupier, eights and nines phenomenally turned up against the bank. Williams, cross-examined by Sir Patrick Hastings, said he went bankrupt in 1931. He made between £120,000 and £200,000 in 1932 owing to his buying 4,000,000 goldmine shares at a farthing each. He denied Sir Patrick Ha sting 7 s suggestion that he was a big gambler and also a suggestion that only himself and friends got gold from the company, adding that the Consolidated Goldfields of South Africa, also the market, knew how much gold was being got out of the mine. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. (Received 12 noon) LONDON, January 1. The court was packed on tiie resumption of the gambling case. Williams gave evidence that Sir Alfred Butt, who was the banker, quitted the game with six or seven thousand sterling, after refusing to allow witness to stake five thousand on a certain card. Witness declared Abrahams, Saville and Solomons, cheated h im.

Three times he put a thousand on the turn of the card ; ho lost two and won one. He did not think anyone else was playing so high. He lost £11.200 and his friends lost several thousands. Mr Justice Finlay found no evidence of a contract or a warranty between plaintiff and defendant. A very serious risk in such a party was the probability of the presence of a small element, of card sharpers, but there was no evidence* that reasonable steps had net been taken to exclude them, and no damage was disclosed arising from, a breach of duty. Mr Justice Finlay then withdrew the case from, the jury and gave judgment for Trevor ' with costs.

Trevor told a reporter that he would never again associate himself with gambling parties for charity.