FINE OF £l00

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19640, 7 November 1933, Page 3

FINE OF £loo

GAMING ACT BREACH BOOKMAKER BEFORE COURT Bj' Telegraph—Press Association CHRISTCHURCH, November 6. A fine of £IOO and costs was inflicted on Charles Frederick Fearon, aged 30, of Tennyson Street, who was described in the charge sheet as a bookmaker, when he pleaded guilty before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court to-day, to using his premises as a common gaming house. The police stated that accused had been carrying on the business ever since he was fined £IOO in 1926 for a similar offence, and he was apparently a member of the Bookmakers’ Association.

The Magistrate remarked that there were some interesting names on a list found among the betting material. Chief-Detective W. H. Dunlop said Detectives J. McClung and D. McKenzie, acting on a search warrant, searched Fearon’s house in Tennyson Street at 11 o’clock on Saturday morning. They found him actively engaged in the business of a common gaming house, and discovered a considerable amount of material, mainly doublescharts.

“There is definite proof from this material that accused is one of the association members,” said Chief-De-tective Duplop.

“Is there such a thing?” queried the Magistrate.

Chief-Detective Dunlop: Oh, yes there is.

The Magistrate: Its existence has been denied in this Court by eminent counsel.

Chief-Detective Dunlop said accused had been fined £IOO in 1926 following a conviction for a similar offence, and he had been in the same business ever since.

“You will notice that the headings on some of the those papers are 'private and confidential',” concluded the Chief-Detective. Mr A. W. Smithson, for accused, said accused was a married man and had three children. “Accused has conducted his business in an orderly way. He has only had one previous conviction and is a respectable citizen. He has given the police every assistance. “He is not in business in a very large way—his bets are all fairly small.” “That is due more to the times than anything else,” countered the Magistrate.

The Magistrate examined a list that was in the material produced in Court. “There are one or two interesting names on this," he commented. Chief-Detective Dunlop: Yes, I noticed that. He would take into consideration the representations of counsel, said the Magistrate, but he also had to take into account evidence submitted by the police. Accused would be fined £IOO and costs.