MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 5009, 17 May 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAßU—Friday, May 17. (Before O. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.) GAMBLING IN A LICENSED HOUSE, T. Wilson, licensee of the Melville Hotel, was charged with suffering an unlawful game to be carried on for money in the hotel. Sergeant-Maj ;r Mason prosecuted, and Mr Hay appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Thomas Harrison, labourer, Timaru, repealed the evidence given by him in the case on Monday, when a man named Morgan was fined 20s on a charge of playing with dice at the hotel on Saturday night last. They were in the bar playing on the counter, and the licensee and a boy who attended to the bar

were present. There were four playing at la each, sometimes Morgan and one other threw for 5s each. The money was exposed on the counter, most of it. The defendant was not there all the time, bat he was bound to see them shaking. The boy was betting on the throws. He bet Reid Is, several times, that Morgan would win. The play was not fair Morgan having a fa’se die. Mr Hay: Unless Mr Wilson knew that, this is not evidence against him. Mr Mason : We do not suggest that it was known to him.

Witness : They were shaking from 9 20 till I left at 10.30, and I left them at it. Sometimes they shook for drinks, but mostly for " dry shillings.” The boy served the drinks. To Hxs Worship : Could not say how often Wilson was in the bar while the shaking was going on, a good many times. He could have seen the money on the counter. There was no attempt to hide it. He was in the bar most of the time. Ido not think he knew about the false die.

To Mr Hay: I still stick to what I said last Monday, that I took no part in the shaking, and that I received no shilling from Beid for the purpose. Had no drinks, but took cigarettes when there was a shout. There must have been about twenty shakes, because they kept at it. Could not say the proportion of “ wet” to “ dry " shakes. Sometimes Morgan shouted without a shako. There were four—Keid, Hudson, Morgan and another, also shook for half crowns twice. Morgan and one other shook for crowns four or five times. Did not know his name : when the man lost all he had he left. Morgan won every time, and he won all the half crowns, and also most of the “ bobs-in.” When Morgan shouted it was sometimes for “all hands.” There was another man there besides myself. He did not shout every time, and I did not take something every time, but I pot four packets of cigarettes. At the time Morgan was shaking for 5s Hudson was outside, and Keid was talking to me, and did not seem to be taking any notice of the shaking. I had had no interview with any constable before going in. I went to the police because I did not like to see hard workingmen robbed. I did not go as a police spy. The bar is divided into two and the shaking took place at the billiard room end. The boy attended to that end, but the defendant often came and spoke to the men, “ How are you getting on ?” Was sure he knew of the shoking. He looked at and spoke to them while they were at it. He was often carrying away drinks to other parts of the house, but was often in the bar, washing glasses and so on. He was in (ho bar m;st of the time. He could not have helped seeing the gaming. The boy made bets of Is with Reid on Morgan’s throwing and they put the money down. The throwing was all “.Yankee grab.” To His Worship : I dont suppose I should have said anything about it to the police, if I had not seen working men robbed so barefacedly. To Mr Mason : I did not know any of the men, never saw any of them before. Beid was quite a stranger to one, I did not ask him for shilling. John Beid, a laborer, Seadown, alsa gave similar evidence to that given on Monday They were only shaking for drinks. Shook on the bar and the money was put on the bar. Sometimes Wilson was in tho bar, but was mostly out of it. Supposed Wilson saw them when bo was in the bar.

To Mr Hay : Supposed so,from his being in the bar. Did not remember him ever looking on. If Wilson swore he did not see them could not contradict him. He did not stay long in the bar at any time, and never spoke to or served those who were gaming. I put a shilling in for Harrison at his request ; am positive of that, am quite clear about it, had a shilling in myself too. I never shook for half crowns that night, nor saw anyone else do it, nor for ss, and it could not have been done without my seeing it. Did not take much notice of Harrison. (Mr Hay asked a number of questions respecting details but witness “ didn’t notice,” “ couldn’t tell,’*) —Tim boy took no part in the shakes. The evidence of the last witness that the boy in the bar was b. tting with me on Morgan’s shakes, is false. We had about half-a-dozen shakes altogether. There was no unfairness that I saw. If I saw a man winning time after time I should not go on, should suspect something wrong. To Mr Mason : I lost a few bob. Didn’t you lose all you had ?—I had a few bob when I left.

To his Worship : I was sober enough to remember what took place.

David Hudson, a gardener, Seadown, who was also examined on Monday, was one of the four throwers. The money was place I openly on the bar. Could not say whether Wilson saw it. First of all they shook for drinks only, lossr to shout, and afterward < for a shilling in. The boy handed them the dice box.

To Mr Hay : A man named Gardner came in just before Reid and I left. ( Gardner was tho name of the fourth man.) Harrison had a shake along with us. I know ho had one for certain, and shook the dice himself. I know as a matter of fact Reid gave him a shilling. There was no shaking for dry money. Is is false that any four men shook for half crowns, and any two for 5s each. I never saw the boy belting on the throws. Did not notice particularly whether Wilson was in the bar, or whether he saw the game. I did not lose much. Mr Hay: And Reid says he did not lose much.

Harrison recalled : Tho dice box was got for the men by the boy. Reid, recalled : It is the usual thing for a dice box to be kept, and shaking for drinks goes on in every hotel in the colony. Sergeant-Major Mason gave evidence of the report being made to the police, of going to the hotel, and searching Morgan and finding a false die Apon him (die produced). Arrested Morgan and told the defendant he was surprised to find him permitting cheating to go on in his hotel. Defendant made no reply, Morgan had 26s on him when arrested. Constable Satchwell gave corroborative evidence.

Mr Hay stated at some length tho grounds of defence. Defendant would deny all knowledge of tho gaming. Tho boy must have known that shaking was going on, but that was not sufficient to make the licensee responsible. He charged the witness Harrison with giving lying evidence, with committing perjury, as ho had sworn to a number of things that two witnesses had contradicted. Ho would admit that the men were shaking for drinks, and having “ a shilling in,” but that was countenanced by tho law and practised in every hotel in tho colony. He called

James Gardner, labourer, Timaru, went to the hotel between nine and ten and took part ia the shaking. It woe for “ wet” money only. Mr Wilson was running in and out with a tray, did not tak® much notice of him but he was out a good deal of the time, tie never stayed in the bar and looked on at the shaking. The shaking was all fair, and the winnings pretty oven. Wilson bad no conversation with any of us. Did not seo the boy taking any part in the throwing. Did not notice whether Wilson was in the bar at all while the shaking was going on, 'i’wpntyman Wilson, tho defendant, said ho had been an botel-keopor about 20 years, and this was tho first time any charge had been made against him. The house was pretty full that night, four rooms woro well occupied, besides the bar, and ho was attending to all outeido tho bar. Mrs Wilsoa usually at-

tended to the bar, but she had been unwell for some time, and the “ boots ” was put in. Was hardly ever in the bar except to get drinks, and never saw any gambling going on there. Never spoke to- the four men. It was not true (as Harrison had stated) that he went over to the men and asked how they were getting on. {Witness described how ho was engaged in such a way as to keep him out of the bar all the time except when fetching drinks from it.

Mr Mason referred the' court to a reported English case on the law of responsibility of a landlord for the acts of bis servants.

Mr Bay addressed the court at some length. First, on the resposibility, where a servant who has the knowledge is not the regular barman (in this case it was the "boots”) the knowledge of such servant could not be imputed to the master, and in such cases it must be shown that the master himself either had actual knowledge or had connived at the offence by remaining away in order to avoid having such knowledge. Mr Hay spent some time in arguing that Yankee grab for drinks was not an unlawful game under the New Zealand law.

His Worship said he should not consider nice points and would hold that a game of dice for money was an unlawful game. In giving judgment His Worsliip said all games with dice wore prohibited by the English statute, which was in force here. As to the knowledge of defendant that dicing was going on, it appeared to him from the evidence that he must have known it. He was in and out of the bar many times, and if he did not see it he must have wilfully shut his eyes to it. The evidence was conflicting, the first witness, who gave the most important evidence, being contradicted by two other witnesses for the prosecution as to the extent to which the throwing was carried, whether up to fire shilling slakes or not. All three witnesses, however, showed that the shaking was going on for a considerable period. It was stated that Yankee grab was constantly practised in hotels, and His Worship referred to the evidence ns to the false die, as showing the harmfulness of it. It was not shown that Morgan had used it, but ho had a considerable quantity of silver when arrested, and it was very probable that he had come by it by improper practices. Ho held that the offence bad been proved. Mr Hay pointed out that this was the first time defendant had ever had a charge made against him as an hotelkeeper, during an experience of twenty years, and he had denied all knowledge of the dicing. His Worship said he did not believe that denial; he very much doubted it; at ail events a man of his experience ought to have known it. Ho would fine him £5, without costs, the conviction to be endorsed on the license. The Court then adjourned till 2.30.