LAW REPORT.

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XLI, Issue 48, 6 December 1916, Page 845

LAW REPORT.

(“New Zealand Law Reports,” 1916, page 1103.)

[S.C. In Banco. ( 'hristchubch — (Denniston, J.) — 3rd August and 27th September, 1916.]

COX & WALSH V. GIBSON

Gaining—Common Gaming-house — Bookmakers’ Office —“ Betting by Post, Tele- “ graph, or Telephone ” —Character of User of 800m —Gaming Act, IMS, ss. 4 (1), 36 (1) (a).

The appellants carried on in a certain room all of the steps to receive, note, record, and pay bets and otherwise carry on their business as bookmakers, except that letters and telegrams were not conveyed by the proper authorities to the room, but were in the case of letters placed in a postoffice private letter-box, whence they were taken by one or other of the appellants, and in the case of telegrams were delivered to one or other of them over the office counter.

Held, That this exception did not take them out of s. 36(1) (a) of the Gaming Act, 1908, and that the room was used for the purpose of betting and was a common gaming-house within s. 4 (1) of the Act.

Semble, That the Legislature may have determined to treat the keeping

of a definite room or place for betting as illegal.

General appeal under s. 308 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1908, from convictions of the appellants by the Stipendiary Magistrate at Christchurch under the Gaming Act, 1908. The charge against each of the appellants was that, being the occupier of certain premises-—to wit, certain rooms situated on the third floor of the Royal Exchange Buildings in Cathedral Square, Christchurch —he did keep the same as a common gaming-house. The following statement of facts is taken from the judgment : The appellants carry on jointly the business of bookmakers. They occupy a room in a building in Cathedral Square, Christchurch. No other business is carried on there. In two applications for telephone connections for the room in question Cox described himself as an “ indent agent.” On the morning of the 25th May of this year two detectives, acting on a warrant under the hand of a Stipendiary Magistrate under s. 3 of the Gaming Act, 1908, entered upon the premises occupied by the appellants and seized certain books, documents, and papers. In the room were found the two appellants, Merfield their accountant, and two other men. Two telephones on a table were both ringing, but not answered. Beside each telephone was a book with printed consecutive numbers, and on the front cover of each was a race-card for each of two race meetings -Oamaru and Wanganui—which were being run that day. On leaves obviously torn out of these books were entries of the names of the races to be run that day at these meetings, with the names of horses running in such races, and the names (some obviously fancy names) of persons -199 in all—opposite them, and with a figure against each, either a unit or a fraction, \ or £ or f. These suggest at once a pound or pounds or fractions of a pound. On none of these sheets was there any mention of odds. Numerous books, letters, telegrams, and entries were found, all relating to betting. £73 19s. 9d. in cash was found in the room or in the possession of the appellants and Hunt. The appellants were convicted on this evidence of having used the room as a common gaming-house, and appealed from the decision.

The material provisions of the Gaming Act, 1908, are as follow: 4. (1.) Every person who being the owner or occupier or having the use of any premises opens, keeps, or uses the same as a common gaming-house . . . . is liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. 36. (1.) No premises shall be opened, kept, or used—(a.) For the purpose of the owner, occupier, or keeper thereof, or any person procured or employed by or acting for or on behalf of such owner, occupier, or keeper, or of any person having the care or management or in any manner conducting the business thereof, betting with any persons whomsoever in person or by messenger, agent, post, telegraph, telephone, or otherwise; (2.) All premises opened, kept, or used for the purposes aforesaid, or any of them, are hereby declared to be a common nuisance and contrary to law. (3.) All premises opened, kept, or used for the purposes aforesaid, or any of them, shall be taken and deemed to be common gaming-houses. Raymond, K.G., for the respondent : Information is laid under s. 4 of the Gaming Act, 1908, and the definition of “ gaming-house ” under s. 36 is relied on. The extension of the provisions of s. 11 of the Gaming Act, 1881, to include telephone betting was effected by s. 8 of the Gaming Act Amendment Act, 1907, and is brought down in the Consolidated Statutes of 1908. No business need be done if the office is opened for the purpose of betting : Hart v. McCreadie( 1). Nor is it necessary that money be received at the house if an essential part of the business is done or intended to be done there : Stoddart v. Hawke{ 2) ; Lennox v. Stoddart( 3). The following cases deal with the quantum of evidence: Rex v. Mortimer( 4) ; Reynolds v. Agar( s) ; Rex v. Mean(6). See also Coldridge on Gambling(7). The post-office box is an accessory to the office : Taylor v. Monk( 8). Davey v. Green( 9), relied on in the lower Court, is distinguishable, because the charge there was that the postal box was the place, and it did not appear there was any office there. The Court should look at letters found in the office and entries in the book in deciding the character of the house : Rex v. Grant( 10). An inference should be drawn from the appellants' abstention from giving evidence : Rex v. Brown d McCann(ll). Cassidy, for the appellants:— Betting per se is not unlawful, but only when carried on in a prohibited manner : See per Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Go.(12). No illegality attaches to the mere act of betting, nor to habitual betting, nor to the business of a professional bookmaker provided he does not offend against any of the Acts prohibiting certain methods of betting. Some circumstance or circumstances of place or condition forbidden by law must be added before such betting is illegal: Reg. v. Brown(Yd). In Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co. (14) Lord Halsbury points out that the Act makes no distinction between bookmakers and other members of the publip who bet. The real gist of the offences created by s. 36 of the Gaming Act of 1908 is the opening and keeping or using of premises for certain specified purposes —viz., for the purpose of betting with

(1) [lß9B] 2 Ct. of Scss. Gas. 1 ;

36 S.C. L.R. 912. (2) [1902] 1 K.B. 353. (3) [1902] 2 K.B. 21. (4) [l9ll] l K.B. 70. (5) 70 J.P. 568. (6) 21 T. L.R. 172. (7) 2nd ed. 317, 322, 323,

(8) [1914] 30 T. L.R. 367. (9) [1914] V. L.R. 594. (10) 21 N.Z. L.R. 122 ; 4 G.L.R. 186. (11) 29 N.Z. L.R. 846, 852 ;12 G.L.R.

401. 404. (12) [1899] A.G. 143, 159. (13) [1895] 1 Q.B. 119. (14) [1899] A.G. 143, 164.

any persons in person, or by messenger, agent, post, telegraph, telephone, or otherwise. What is condemned is the opening, keeping, or using of premises for these purposes. The character of the user of the premises is what is aimed at by the Act : See per Lord Esher in Kemplon Park case( 1) ; Rex v. Deaville( 2) ; Coldridge’s Law of Gambling (3). The purpose for which this office was kept —-that is, as an office for the appellants' business—is not condemned by the section. No person physically resorted thereto, and no betting was done there by post, telegraph, or messenger. AH correspondence was received at a private letter-box in the post-office, and all telegrams at the telegraph-office counter. The mere presence of telephones without evidence of their use for betting is insufficient.. The finding of books, papers, &c., on the premises is clearly insufficient, and simply indicates that the premises were used as defendants private office. Section 36 ( I) (a) contemplates that, if betting is alleged to have been done by post or telegraph, it must be by letter or telegram addressed to the premises in respect of which the charge is laid. The words “in person or by messenger or agent" import actual resorting to the premises, and “ telephone similarly imports something attached to the premises themselves. The words “or otherwise ” must be construed ejusdem generis. The words “ post and telegraph ” mean the placing of letters in the post-office, or telegrams in the telegraph-office, addressed so as to ensure delivery at the premises in question. The intention of the Act is not to affect the use of an office by a bookmaker for his business provided he does not use it for any of the eight prohibited purposes set out in s. 36. The evidence is consistent with the use of the room by the defendants for recording their business and not as a betting establishment. Ascertained facts, and particularly the postal and telegraphic arrangements of defendants and the absence of persons resorting to the room, support the conclusion that the use of the room was for lawful and not for prohibited purposes. The Act, being penal, should be construed strictly. In Rex v. Grant(4) Williams, -T., said “it was not illegal to make “ a bet, nor was it illegal to carry on the business of a book- “ maker, provided the person doing so did not give totalizator “ odds, and provided that he did not infringe the provisions of “ the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881. In Rex v. Barnett( s) Denniston, .T., said “ a man who was a bookmaker might legiti- “ mately and legally keep an office to carry on his business. “ What the law aimed at was to prevent the keeping of houses “ where persons knew that they could resort to bet. See also per Channell, J., in Brown v. Patch( 6). Section 8 of the Gaming Act, 1907 (now s. 36 of the 1908 Act), added nothing to the similar s. II of the Act of 1881, except the extension of the prohibition to the user of premises for betting with persons “ by messenger, agent, post, telegraph, telephone, or otherwise, ’ and it omitted any restriction on the user of premises by professional betting-men for purposes other than those expressly prohibited. If the intention of the Legislature had been to prohibit in toto the use of premises by professional bettors in their business it was easy to bring such user within the meshes of the Act. In Rex v. Mortimer(l) letters were addressed directly

(1) [1897] 2 Q.B. 242. 259.

(5) Unreported : see Press (Chch.),

(2) [1903] 1 K.B. 468. 14 May, 1902. (3) 2nd od. 300. (6) [1899] 1 Q.B. 892, 898, (4) Unreported: see Otago Daily (7) [l9ll] 1 K.B. 70, Times, 25 Nov., 1903,

to the premises the subject of the charge. Davey v. Green{ 1) decides that the use of a. private post-office letter-box is permissible for a bookmaker for his business. If upon the whole evidence there is a real state of doubt the prosecution has failed to satisfy the onus of proof which lies upon them : In re Joseph Stoddart( 2).

Cur. adv. milt

Sept. 27.— Denniston, J. [After quoting the relevant sections and stating the facts His Honour proceeded : | The question I have to decide is, Do these facts justify the conclusion that the room was used for the purpose of betting with any persons whomsoever, by messenger, agent, post, telegraph, telephone, or otherwise, or for the purpose of money being received for the purposes mentioned in s. 36 (1) ( h) or any of them ? That its occupiers carried on within it all, with one exception, of the steps to receive, note, record, and pay bets and otherwise carry on their business as bookmakers is not disputed. The exception is that all letters and telegrams were not conveyed by the proper authorities to the room, but were, in the case of letters, placed in a post-office private letter-box, whence they were taken by one or other of the appellants, and in the case of telegrams were delivered to one or other of them over the office counter. It is on this exception that the appellants rely to take them out of the section. In my opinion this has not that result. Betting is a process involving several steps. It is not effected by the mere proposal. There must be an offer and an acceptance which binds the acceptor only after it has reached the proposer or his agent, which may be the post. It is not suggested that the obviously large number of letters and telegrams reaching the hands of the appellants are opened or dealt with in the street. The wording of the section is peculiar. The prohibition is not against betting but against opening, using, or keeping any premises for betting by any of the means indicated, which include post, telegraph, telephone, or otherwise. It appears to me idle to contend that the room now in question was not kept for the purpose of betting by post and telegraph. It was contended for the appellants that this construction of the section would prevent a bookmaker from carrying on his lawful occupation of laying direct odds—straight-out betting. Such a man, it is argued, is entitled to keep an office. It is true that, betting on horse-racing is not in all forms illegal. What is known as “ straight-out betting ” —laying or taking definite odds on the result of a horse-race-—is legal. Betting by means of the totalizator, as defined by s. 50 (3) (i) of the Gaming Act, 1908, is legalized, under certain conditions and restrictions, at certain defined horse-race meetings. By the machine the amount payable on a win is determined by dividing in certain proportions the total amount of the sums invested on the result of any race by the number of tickets on the winning or second horse in such race. This dividend is of course ascertainable only after the event. Betting upon what are known as totalizator odds- defined by s. 52 as making or entering into a bet upon the result of any horse-race, whereby any person agrees to pay to the other party to the said bet, if the latter shall win the same, a sum of money the amount of which is dependent upon the result of the working of the totalizator on the said horse-race—-is made an offence on the part, of the layer and the taker of such bet. Any person who sends or causes to be sent to any person

(I) [1914] V. L.R. ~>94

(2) 2 Or. App. R. 217, 242,

Solicitor for the appellants

Solicitor for the respondent (Christchurch).

(1) 21 N.Z. L.R. 122, 124 ; 4 G.L.R. (2) 30 T. L.R. 367. 186. (3) 2 Cr. App. R. 217.

2—P.G

any circular, notice, advertisement, letter, telegram, or other document requesting or inviting any such person to employ him as an agent, or offering his services as an agent, in pm-chasing any ticket or making any bet in connection with the working of any totalizator, or investing any money in connection with the working of any totalizator, is also guilty of an offence (s. 53). The only legitimate betting is therefore either what is known as straight-out betting on a particular horse at definite odds or betting on the ground on the machine. Straight-out betting, as was said at the hearing and as is generally known, is not common ; and engaging in it as a profession would, owing to the competition of the totalizator, probably not be remunerative. It may very well be that the Legislature may have determined to treat the keeping of a definite room or place for betting as illegal. In straight-out betting, as was said by Williams, J., in Rex v. Gmnt(l), in every proposal to bet the odds are either definitely mentioned or are to be settled by some definite plan known both to proposer and maker. When such a proposal or a record of it is found, the problem which in a prosecution in respect of it has to be solved is to determine if there is prima facie evidence that the plan was that the amount to be paid was to be determined upon the result of the working of the totalizator. In order to determine it one has to exercise one’s common-sense and knowledge of everyday life and its incidents. It may have been the intention of the Legislature to reduce the conveniences for betting to a minimum-—even to the low standard referred to by a witness in Taylor v. Monk( 2). “ They ” [the betting-slips] “ must be taken to some house. We can’t do our business all “in the streets.” I have not, however, to do with the possible intention of the Legislature, but with the plain words of the statute. It is not, however, necessary for me actually to decide this question, as there is, in my opinion, clear proof that the appellants were using the premises for the purpose of betting by telephone. The only occupation of the appellants was betting. The two telephones in the room were in active use. Entries as to races to be run that day were on the table beside them torn from books evidently in actual use. Many of these entries related to persons proved to have telephones, or residing within places where they had access to telephones. A receipt addressed to a resident in Southbridge, dated the day of the seizure, drawn in carefully vague and non-committal terms, with the printed signature of the appellant Walsh, was found on the premises. That clearly made at least a strong prima facie case of betting through the telephone. A prima, facie case is of course a case which if unanswered would support a conviction or a verdict. The appellants have not attempted to answer it. The case of Joseph Stoddart( 3) only deals with the question of a misdirection that, because the evidence for the prosecution established a prima facie case, the burden of the proof is shifted. The appeals are dismissed, with £7 7s. costs against each appellant.

Appeals dismissed.

J. A. Cassidy (Christchurch)

S. G. Raymond, Crown Solicitor

Name of Offender. t i Where tried. When. Offence. Sentence. Native of Trade. j Born. Height. Com- ; plexion. Hair. Eyes. Nose. Distinguishing Marks, &c. 1 McMullen, Rose Agnes, alias Auckland 20/11/16 drunkenness .. convicted and England .. domestic .. 1873 ft 5 in. 4 fresh .. brown brown .. medium 1 p.c. for drunkenness and breach of prohibition Howes, Rose Ann procuring liquor for a discharged convicted, disorder. prohibited person charged, and prohibited Young, Alexander .. Auckland 20/11/16 drunkenness .. convicted, disN. Zealand labourer 1860 5 4 fair grey grey .. large Burn-scar inside right elbow. (See Police charged, and prohibited Gazette, 1913, page 36.) indecency fined £1 Moss, Bernard Hilton Auckland 20/11/16 indecency fined £5 N. Zealand carpenter .. 1881 5 8 fair fair, turning grey .. medium Strong build ; round features. grey Williams, Arthur James, Auckland 21/11/16 theft to come up if N. Zealand labourer 1894 5 5 dark .. black grey .. medium Scar on left eyebrow. (See Police Gazette, 1916, alias Rees, Frederick William, alias Reid, J. W., alias Tiudle, Thomas, alias Rees, Frederick James called on page 806.) Williamson, Henry Joseph, Auckland 21/11/16 theft to come up if Australia .. labourer 1843 5 swarthy dark, turning blue-gr’y medium Scar on bridge of nose; right little and ring alias Williams, Harry called on and grey fingers contracted. (See Police Gazette, 1915, prohibited hawker 1897 page 695.) Powell, Robert Auckland 20,11/16 idle and disorderly to come up if Australia .. 5 11 fair fair grey .. medium Naked woman sitting on barrel on right upper called on and prohibited arm ; lighthouse, woman’s head, snake, ship, rising sun, and ballet girl on right forearm; cross on back of left hand ; woman, auchor, consorting to come up if called on • . Hands Across the Sea ; TRUE LOVE, and star on left forearm. Bowden, Thomas .. Auckland 22/11/16 breach of his prohibition to come up if Australia .. cab-driver .. 1858 5 5 fair dark,turning grey .. medium See Police Gazette, 1916, page 729. order called on grey Hart, George Auckland 22/11/18 giving a receipt with infined £5 England .. matress1871 5 7 fresh .. dark,turning hazel .. medium Stout build ; heavy fair moustache. tent to evade stampduty ship-desertion maker grey Quist, John Auckland 22/11/16 to be placed Holland .. fireman 1888 5 6f fresh .. fair blue .. medium Lion and man on right upper arm ; Japanese on his ship woman and leaf, Japanese sailor ana flag, GOOD LUCK, arrow, clasped hands, ship, J. QUIST, and woman’s bust on right forearm ; Japanese woman, anchor, clasped hands, thistle, DINNA FORGET, J.Q., and dagger on left forearm; bracelet on left wrist; D.B. between left forefinger and thumb. (See Police Gazette, 1913, page 346.) Twomey, John Auckland 23/11/16 drunkenness .. convicted and Ireland labourer 1868 5 9i fair brown blue medium Scar on right side of chin. (See Police Gazette, breach of his prohibition discharged to Roboroa for 1915, page 83, and 1916, page 40, and Prisoners Discharged from Gaol, this issue.) order 1 year Stow, Robert wilful damage to pay damage Auckland 23/11/16 drunkenness -. convicted and England .. tailor 1848 5 0 fresh .. grey grey .. medium 2 p.c. for drunkenness. A cripple. breach of his prohibition discharged to Rotoroa for order 1 year

Return of Persons summarily convicted at Magistrates’ Courts, but not sent to Gaol.

Name of Offender. Where tried. When. Offence. Sentence. Native of r Trade. | d o Height. Complexion. Hair. Eyes. Nose. Distinguishing Marks, &c. Troy, James, alias Troy, Auckland 24/11/16 drunkenness .. convicted and Australia .. labourer 1354 ft. in. 5 6* sallow .. ' . dark brown blue large Left wrist has been injured ; scar on right foreJames Nathan, alias discharged arm and on back of neck; clasped hands Thompson breach of his prohibition to Rotoroa for through heart on right forearm. (See Police order 1 year Gazette, 1916, page 822.) Linton, James Auckland 24/11/16 embezzling cargo fined £2 England .. fireman 1884 5 8 sallow .. fair grey .. medium 1 p.c. for drunkenness. Coat-of-arms and flower on right forearm ; bracelet on right wrist ; woman’s head on back of right hand ; tombstone, IN MEMORY OF DEAR MOTHER, R.I.P., angel, weeping willow, and flower on left forearm. Rickards, Dorothy.. Auckland 24/11/16 idle and disorderly 2 months S. Africa .. domestic .. 1899 5 1 fair light brown grey .. medium Warrant suspended if she remains in Salvation Army Rescue Home for two months. Corrigan, Eric Papakura 2/10/16 breaking telegraph into pay damage N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1901 5 6 fair fair brown .. medium sulators Stokes, Clarence .. Papakura 2/10/16 breaking telegraph into pay damage N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1902 5 4 fresh .. brown blue medium Heavy eyebrows. sulators Stokes, William Papakura .. 2/10/16 breaking telegraph into pay damage N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1905 4 10 fresh .. brown blue medium % sulators Wilson, Ronald Papakura 2/10/16 breaking telegraph into pay damage N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1905 4 8 dark .. dark brown.. medium sulators Lindsay, William George Whakatane .. 6/11/16 idle and disorderly (inoonvicted and England .. labourer 1872 5 9 swarthy dark brown hazel .. medium See Police Gazette, 1915, page 380. Edward sufficient means) discharged Wright, Robert George Rotorua 21/11/16 threatening behaviour fined £1 Australia .. bushman .. 1882 5 11 fresh .. dark, going grey .. medium Baker, John Lionel Gisborne 24/11/16 theft (2 charges) sent to BurnN. Zealand schoolboy .. 1908 5 4 copper.. black brown .. flat A half-caste Maori. (See Police Gazette, 1916, ham page 402.) Cunningham, William Adol, Napier 20/11/16 illegally on licensed prefined £2 N. Zealand wool-classer 1883 5 7§ fresh .. dark brown .. prominent Scar on nose; stout build; scars on left fore phus, alias Cunningham raises and storeand middle fingers. (See Police Gazette, William man 1916, page 657.) McGrath. Frank Hurley Napier 20/11/16 breach of his prohibition fined £1 Ireland labourer and 1879 5 21 pale black, going grey .. medium Mole on right arm. (See Police Gazette, 1915, order clerk bald page 661.) Livingstone, David Hawera 23/11/16 commencing a lottery fined £5 N. Zealand showman .. 1890 5 5 sallow .. dark brown brown .. medium Cosgrove, Benjamin Joseph.. Waipawa 23/11/16 breach of his prohibition fined 10s. N. Zealand saddler 1866 5 8 pale dark grey .. medium See*Police Gazette, 1912, page 178. order Lory, Alfred Waipawa 23/11/16 breaking windows fined 8s. N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1902 5 0 dark .. dark blue medium breaking telegraph infined 5s. sulators Runobal, Daniel .. Waipawa 23/11/16 breaking telegraph infined 5s. N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1901 5 2 fresh .. light brown blue medium sulators Runobal, Alfred Leonard .. Waipawa 23/11/16 breaking telegraph infined 5s. N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1903 5 0 fresh .. light brown grey .. medium sulators Rogers, George Hastings 23/11/16 idle and disorderly (into come up if Ireland labourer 1866 5 10 sandy .. light brown grey .. medium sufficient means) called on and prohibited fair Lonergan, Edward.. Hastings 24/11/16 breaoh of his prohibition fined £2 Ireland farmer 1881 5 8^ fair blue medium Clean-shaved. (See Police Gazette, 1916, page order 611.) Iskirka, Frank Palmerston N. 21/11/16 publishing disloyal fined £3 N. Zealand tinsmith 1887 5 n fresh .. fair blue medium See Police Gazette, 1916, page 785. statement

Return of Persons summarily convicted at Magistrates’ Courts, but not sent to Gaol- continued.

Name of Offender. ! Where tried. When. 1 Offence. 1 Sentence. i Native of 1 f Trade. Born. l Height. Complexion. Hair. ; Eyes. NoBe. Distinguishing Marks, &c. Rouberg, Peter Palmerston N. 25/11/16 drunk while in charge fined £1 Denmark .. taxi-driver .. 1868 ft 5 . in. 6 fresh .. brown blue medium Palmerston N. 25/11/16 of a motor-car theft (2 charges) ! to come up if N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1900 5 0 florid .. dark brown .. medium Turner, Frederick William Charles called on Innes, John Greytown 8/11/16 using a labelled bottle fined £20 N. Zealand hotel-keeper 1861 5 6 fair fair, turning blue .. medium Partially paralysed. for bottling liquor without first destroygrey ing the label McKinnon, Elizabeth Mary Greytown 8/11/16 using a labelled bottle fined £20 N. Zealand hotelkeeper 1862 5 7 pale black, turngrey .. medium for bottling liquor without first destroying the label ing grey Firth, Henry Wellington .. 20/11/16 rogue and vagabond (ilfined 10s. N. Zealand carpenter .. 1870 5 10 fresh .. grey blue medium Scar on each shin. (See Police Gazette, 1915, legally on premises) 1869 page 356.) Coleman, Robert .. Wellington .. 20/11/16 keeping a gaming-house fined £20 N. Zealand bootmaker 5 6£ fresh .. grey hazel .. medium Full bloated face. Armstrong, James Oliver .. Wellington .. 20/11/16 obscene language fined 10s. America .. labourer 1856 5 sallow .. grey brown .. medium Growth on left side of neck; faint dot between right thumb and forefinger. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1916, page 437.) Riley, Walter, alias Watson, Wellington .. 20/11/16 consorting fined £5 # , N. Zealand labourer 1885 5 8 fresh .. brown blue medium Woman and snake on left forearm. (See Police Charles Gazette, 1914, page 541, and 1913, page 43.) Smith, William Wellington .. 20/11/16 theft fined £1 . . Tasmania.. labourer 1870 5 H fresh .. dark grey .. medium Bracelet and LOVE on right wrist; two crosses and two dots on left forearm. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1915, page 308.) Moody, Thomas Henry, alias Wellington .. 21/11/16 theft fined £2 , , N. Zealand motorman .. 1888 5 6 fresh .. brown blue large One right finger broken. (See Police Gazette, Moody, Thomas Australia .. 1897 1908, page 21.) Clancy, Martin Joseph Wellington .. 24/11/16 breach of the peace fined 10s. labourer 5 3 fresh .. dark grey .. medium Wears glasses. Banks, Frederick Henry Edward Vickery, William James Wellington .. 24/11/16 breach of the peace fined 5s. N. Zealand tailor 1890 5 7 fresh .. dark brown .. medium Nelson 17/11/16 theft convicted and N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1899 5 4 sallow .. brown blue medium Scar on forehead, near left eye. discharged McWilliams, John Andrews Nelson 17/11/16 theft to come up if N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1906 5 3 fair black blue-gr’y medium See Police Gazette, 1914, page 666. called on Le Nedelec, Louis Jean Hokitika 23/11/16 drunkenness .. fined £1 France seaman 1891 5 fresh .. brown brown .. medium Right little finger has been broken. Gustave indecent language fined £2 Boyd, John Kaikoura 25/11/16 indecent language fined 10s. .. Ireland farmer 1854 5 10 fresh .. fair blue medium Right leg stiff. (See Police Gazette, 1916, page 405.) See Police Gazette , 1916, page 833.) Dobbs, John .. .. Christchurch 20/11/16 rogue and vagabond convioted and England .. labourer 1856 5 fair grey blue medium (insufficient means) discharged England .. blue .. Capes, Percy Christchurch 22/11/16; assault to oome up if farmer 1888 5 8 fresh .. brown long, thin called on Brown, John Geraldine 27/11/16 obscene language to come up if N. Zealand farmer 1887 5 to sandy .. red blue medium threatening behaviour called on to oome up if ! called on

Return of Persons summarily convicted at Magistrates’ Courts, but not sent to Gaol- continued.

Name of Offender. Where tried. When. Offence. 1 Sentence. 1 j Native of Trade. Born. Height Complexion. Hair. Byes. I I Nose. Distinguishing Marks, &c. 1 Peat, Archibald Clyde 16/11/16 assault to come up if N. Zealand carpenter .. 1875 ft. in. 5 n fair brown grey .. medium Small heart on left forearm. called on and McDougall, John .. .. Clyde 24/11/16 drunkenness .. prohibited convicted and discharged N. Zealand labourer 1876 5 11 fresh .. brown, going bald blue medium refusing to pay railway fined 10s. and to fare pay fare fresh .. brown medium * Laurie, James Bell Clyde 24/11/16 drunkenness .. convicted and N. Zealand labourer 1891 5 64 grey .. obscene language discharged fined £3 fresh .. brown medium Tarleton, Christopher Patrick Dunedin 20/11/16 mischief (breaking a fined £2 and to N. Zealand mechanic .. 1890 5 8 grey .. window) pay damage Duckmanton, Vernon Stanley !Dunedin 22/11/16 theft to come if up N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1903 4 94 fresh .. fair brown .. medium Scar on back of head and on left ankle. F.P. called on

Return of Persons summarily convicted at Magistrates’ Courts, but not sent to Gaol- continued.