SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 964, 14 March 1917, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. A GAMING APPEAL. Sitting in banco this morning his Honour Mr Justice Denniston heard the appeal of William Pollock, who, in July last was convicted and fined £SO, in the Magistrate's Court on a charge of betting in a railway carriage travelling between Christchurch and Ashburton. The appeal was one of law. Mr J. A. Cassidy (instructed by Mr A. C. Hanlon, of Dunedin), appeared for the appellant, and Mr S. C. Raymond, K.C., represented Detective Gibson, who was formally nominated as ihe respondent. Mr Cassidy said that the information had been laid under section 2 of "The Gaming Act, 1910." The first question that arose was whether a passenger train in transit was a public place within the meaning of the -Act. Secondly, he contended, there had not been sufficient evidence submitted to justify the Magistrate in fining appellant, even assuming that a train came within the definition of a public place. A railway carriage he submitted, was not a place wherein "the public may assemble, and where money may be paid for admission." The people in the railway carriage did not assemble, nor did they pay money for admission. They intended assembling at the racecourse. If there were only one man in the carriage he could not be termed an assembly. His Honour expressed the opinion that people assembled on a train for the purpose of assembling again elsewhere. One man would certainly be the beginning of an assembly. Mr Cassidy said that there were no > charges for admission to a railway carriage, no barricade and nothing 1 to prevent anyone entering without paying for admission. The train was | used just as a motor car was used,! for bringing people to a place of assembly. His Honour said there was nothing in the act about assemblage. It spoke of a place where people "may assemble." Providing a carriage were empty it was still a place where people may assemble. The circumstance that a train was ambulatory did not affect the matter. Mr Casskly: The phrase is a very flexible one, your Honour. His Honour: It is in your hands, Mr Cassidy. Why might men not assemble together for the purpose of transit, as well as for amusement? Mr Cassidy: That point is un-j answerable, your Honour. In the I Police Offences Act the earlier defi- j nition did not include a train as a ■ place of assembly, or as a public place. There was no evidence submitted, continued Mr Cassidy, to justify the Magistrate's inference that belting had taken place. The evidence tended to show a suspicion, but it was quite consistent with appellant's handing out cards only in pursuit of his profession. His Honour: What is his profession? Mr Cassidy: He is admitted to be a bookmaker, your Honour. Without calling on Mr Raymond, his Honour said he could only characterise the appeal as an extremely courageous one. It was submitted that the definition "may assemble" did not cover a coming together of the public. He considered that the words were incapable of any interpretation beyond that placed upon it by the Magistrate. He entirely agreed with the Magistrate's decision on that point. With regard to Mr Cassidy's second contention, he asked what Pollock was doing distributing his "visiting" cards if he were not betting. Every man, woman, and child, except infants in arms, who was in that carriage must have been perfectly well aware that betting was going on. Magistrates and judges could not be expected to shut their eyes to these things. The appeal would be dismissed, with £lO 10/- costs.