GAMING ACT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11955, 14 March 1917, Page 2

GAMING ACT.

POLLOCK v. POLICE. SUPREME COURT APPEAL. His Honor Mr Justice Lemus'ton. presided at to-day's sitting of the S'apreme Court, in banco. Tho appeal was taken of William Pollock, Dunediu, against a decision of Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., in the Christchureh Magistrate's Court., by which Pollock was convicted of betting in a railway carriage between Ashburto.u and Christchureh, in May last. Pollock wa-s lined £oo.

Mr Raymond, Iv.C., appeared for the Crown, and Mr Cassidy, instructed by Mr A. C. Hanlon, appeared for thd appellant, Mr Cassidy said that the two questions* to bo decided were: (1) Whether the interior of a. railway carriage in a passenger train travelling between Christchureh and Akhbufton was a public place, and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction of betting. Mr Cassidy urged that a njoving railway carriage was not a place where the public could be said to have access, nor could re be said that tlie peoplo in the carriage had "assembled," as defined by tho Act. Peoplo coining together could not be said to assemble. His Honor.- Why not? Mr Cassidy: If there were one man only in a railway carriage could he be regarded as an "assemblage." His Honor: He wo'ald he the beginning of one. There is no word in the Act about tho intention of assemblage. Air Ga&sidy : Could the people going on tin? ferry boat to Wellington be said to be "assembling?" His Honor: Certainly. Mr Cassidy: 1 submit the coning together is casual, arid cannot be regarded as " assembling." Continuing Mr Cassidy said that it had not been shown that the people had mot in the railway carriage for the purpose of beating, and thlis itcould not be termed an " assemblage." His Honor: The whole point is, was the carriage?, a place where the people could " as-semble." Why could not people assemble together for the purpose of transit?

Mr Cassidy said tho phrase in 'the section was very flexible. His .Honor: Yts, in your hands. (Jij&ug liter.) Air Cass'dy cited several cmw and decisions, and said that bo could not dispute that people could "assemble''' for tho purpose of transit, kit <tho Polite Offences Act 1908, Part 1, did not include "train" in the definitions. Moreover, no evidence was given to justify the magistrate holding that betting had taken place. Tho onus of proof was on the police, and want of proof could not be supplemented by inference. 'there was nothing to show that Pollock was not merely distributing his business cards. Mis Honor said that; ho would not (jail upon Mr Raymond to address the Court. The appeal wag a courageous oao. Nobody could reasonably doubt that a railway carriage was a place where people could assemble, or come together, and a place aleo where money was paid for admission. The information laid was exactly in the words of the statute. He entirely agreed with the magistrate's decision 071 the point of law. Regarding tho sufficiency of tho evidence, he thought it would bo childish to assume that betting did. not take place. What else could the appellant be doing? Ho (his Honor) had no doubt thatt. everybody -iu the railway carriage realised what was going on. The appeal would be dismissed, with £lO 10s costs.

His Honor explained that he placed the costs at £lO 10s, because of the extent to which bookmakers were using the Court for such appeals. Mr Cassidy said that ho was acting under instructions. His Honor said that his remark waa not meant to reflect on Mr Cassidy, who had conducted the appeal in an upright mauner.'and who was perfectly justified in doing his beat • for his client.