Hannah Lovell, the Oakley Inn, was summoned for permitting gaming on her licensed premises on February 17. Mr. J. T. Parker, solicitor for the Licensed Trades Association, appeared for the defence. A young man, named Richard Robinson, a baker, said that on the date named in the charge, he visited the defendant’s house just before nine o’clock in the evening, and went into the tap room, where he saw George Waller and others, who were strangers to him. A man named John Bailey was acting as waiter in the room, and witness had seen him there before acting in the same capacity. Bailey practically had charge of the room. Witness, whilst there, joined in playing at skittles, the game being played for a quart of beer, for which the losers had to pay. The beer was served by Bailey. Witness played at a game called “Don” in which cards and a marking-board were used, his opponent being George Waller. Two games were played for a pint of beer each game. After the first game a dispute arose about the “pegging” and Waller declined to pay. The second game was played after that dispute was settled, and a further dispute arose, Waller again refusing to pay. Bailey was in and out of the room whilst the disputes were going on, and could have known what they were playing for. After the last dispute they left the house, still quarrelling. In reply to Mr. Parker, witness said he did not know whether defendant or the waiter knew that they were playing for money. They sometimes clubbed together and paid for beer which they had not played for. Witness had never seen a notice over the skittle board forbidding gambling on the game. Waller, who was the loser, paid for the beer after the first game at “Don” but witness paid for the second lot of beer, although he won the game. He paid before the game was over, and the dispute was because Waller then refused to pay. George Waller corroborated as to the playing at cards for been, but said he did not know that Bailey was aware of it. P.S. Dunn stated that on the 19th of February the defendant and her son called at the Police Station about this case, when the son said that the men did not play for money, but he sis not know but what they could play for beer. He was surprised to hear that they could not play for beer. For the defence, Mr. Parker contended that neither the defendant or anyone employed by her knew that the men were playing for beer. He pointed out, too, that the defendant and her husband before her had kept this inn for 13 years, and that there never before been the slightest complaint against the house. Witnesses for the defence were called, Bailey stating that he had orders if he saw people playing for beer to stop it, and he had done so. It was quite possible, however, for it to go on without his knowing it. There was a notice in the room: “Gambling ‘strickly’ prohibited,” which, Mr. Parker added was phonetically right. After a lengthy deliberation in private the Magistrates ordered the defendants to pay costs only, but added that they thought the police fully justified in bringing the charge.
|
|
