GAMBLING FOR CHARITY

Southland Times, Issue 22491, 28 January 1935, Page 5

GAMBLING FOR CHARITY

AID FOR LONDON HOSPITALS.

PRIVATE PARTY IN MAYFAIR.

For some days past one has been hearing and reading a great deal about a Mayfair gambling party, organized for charity, which also has been the main topic of conversation in social circles, said the Herald’s London correspondent, writing on December 15. Questions have been asked in the House of Commons. The party took place at Sunderland House, in aid of the Ivory Cross National Dental Fund. The organizers had three tables of roulette and twelve of chemin de fer, while baccarat was another excitement. All these, as pure games of chance, are illegal. The organizers of this particular party were Lord Hihdlip, Lady Cleveland, and Mr John Trevor. Mr Trevor has. organized charities for thirty years. Lord Hindlip said to a representative of the Daily Telegraph:—“During the last few years I have volunteered my services for a considerable number of these parties. I have helped to raise between £20,000 and £30,000 for hospitals in London. These parties are entirely private, and admission to them is only by invitation. A different venue is chosen for each, and I am informed that they are quite within the law. “Twelve months, ago the Home, Secretary 'was asked in the House of Commons about parties of this kind. He replied that the police could not take proceedings in respect of games played on isolated occasions in a private house, which is not a common gaming house,, or a house kept for the purpose of unlawful gaming. The only point which distinguished the Sunderland House affair from others of a similar nature was that the stakes were rather higher than usual. It is believed that'about £50,000 changed hands. We‘have, I think, been doing very good work‘ for 'charity. "But in view of what has happened I do not

feel particularly inclined to help in the organization of any more parties of this kind.” -, ,

Actor-Manager’s Statement.

In a statement to the Daily Express, Sir Alfred Butt, the. well known actormanager, said:—“l had never Previously been to any card party on behalf of charity in London. I went With some friends to the Ivory Cross party at Sunderland House. There were a large number of well-known people playing a rather high game of chemin de fer, and at their insistent request I agreed to take a bank at baccarat, provided that both banker and winning punters contributed a percentage to the charity. After less than half an hour’s play Mr Keith H; Williams, who had previously been a substantial winner and was at the moment losing, wanted to wager £5OOO on a single bet. As I thought this was making the game far too high, I refused. “The decision had the approval of every player at the table, except Mr Williams, and as Mr Williams said I must either accept the bet or relinquish the bank, I promptly ceased playing, and did not in fact play either as banker or punter at baccarat again that evening. , , , “Mr Williams then insisted on taking the bank and went on playing for many hours. He telephoned me the following day saying he had lost quite a large sum of money, and that after I had left he was dissatisfied and had stopped payment of a cheque to the organizers, although, of course, as far as I myself was. concerned, he was most anxious and would, without question, pay me the amount of the cheque drawn in his favour by the organizers and handed by him to me. . . . Lack of Experience.

“In fairness to the organizers I am definitely of the opinion that so far as I was able to observe at both the baccarat and many chemin de fer tables there was most certainly nothing to which objection of any kind could be taken. I am also definitely of the opinion that Mr Williams contributed

to his heavy losses by his impetuosity as banker. ' ■ “The account of my > alleged- Winnings has been, evaggerated, and while I feel that. the. organizers in this instance took every possible precaution to prevent.’ undesirable people' being present and to ensure that everything was carried on correctly, I am of the opinion that however enthusiastic and honest amateurs may be, it is quite impossible for them to have the same knowledge and experience as controllers and croupiers in casinos abroad, and for this reason ‘amateur chemin de fer and baccarat parties’ should not be encouraged.” Cheque' Temporarily Stopped. : Mr Williams, who lost £lO,OOO at the party, stopped payment of the cheque he gave in satisfaction of his -losses “pending investigation into certain aspects of' the matter.” But he immediately deposited £lO,OOO in a special account with his banker to meet the cheque. A list has been prepared setting out the names of. the people who received cheques which were subsequently stopped. Mr Williams has also instructed his solicitor to .arrange for these cheques to be met tation from the deposit account. On paper the organizers had cleared £3OOO for the charity; ' but The stoppage of the cheque • had left' them £7OOO out—for. the' organizers of a gambling party act: as a. clearing, house for the settlement of obligations. As a result they themselves, had. to. stop cheques. given to-winners. . Now they will be able to get ■ the money. ■ ■ In the House of Commons Sir . John Gilmour, replying to questions'in regard to the party, said that the police had no evidence’ that ' offences ' were committed either against the Gambling Act or the Act, but if such evidence were forthcoming the question of instituting proceedings'.would be considered. ‘ ’ I < •’ " ' '■

Pclice Report Called For.

The whole question of gambling in private houses' hired for one night only is likely to receive serious consider-

ation. At present such parties are considered to be within the law, because they do not constitute habitual gaming. Although the guests are supposed to be personally vouched for, it is proved that tickets can be obtained by strangers. . The undesirables will always.circumvent the- most rigorous precautions.

Lady Cleveland has already stated that at a former party there was some trouble. She heard afterwards that one or two “crooks” had managed to get in. It was said they had brought their own cards with them, and that they did very well at the party. A woman visitor relates that after she had been playing for several hours she had before her about £345 in “chips,” representing her, winnings. A man she ■ thought to be taking some official part in the proceedings approached her and asked if he could help her change the “chips.” “1 did not for amoment question- his integrity,” she said. “I therefore handed over about £2OO worth, asking him to change them into high notes.” That, she alleged, was the last she saw of the man and her money.

The woman added: —“I do not for a moment. blame any member of the organizing group, for I know every precaution 'was taken to exclude people who might be of questionable character.”