An Important Point

Yesterday, at the Rotherham West Riding Police Court—before Mr. H. Jubb (in the chair) and other magistrates—Thomas Prendergast, Thomas Morgan, and Thomas Wood, colliers, of Denaby Main, were charged with gambling in the Keresley Arms.

Mr. H. H. Hickmott prosecuted on behalf of Mr. John Slater, the landlord of the inn, and said the men were playing in the tap-room of the inn at a game called “bank.” The Chairman said it did not appear to him that the tap-room of the Keresley Arms was a public place. Mr. Hickmott said that was the very point he was going to argue. The Chairman said the landlord had the power to order the men out, and if they refused he could summon them for refusing to quit.

Mr. Hickmott pointed out that if it were to be held that a public-house was not a public place to which the public had access, an anomaly would exist. Under the old Act of George IV. the phrase used was merely “a public place,” but now there was an addition of “any other place to which the public have access.” If it were to be ruled that people had a right to gamble in a licensed house, a landlord would have to be continually on the watch to prevent it, so as to protect himself, for under the Licensing Acts he would be liable to be fined for permitting gambling on his premises. It had been held over and over again that the mere fact of gambling being proved to have taken place in a public-house would cast the onus upon the landlord of proving that the gaming took place without the knowledge or consent of the landlord or his servants.

The Chairman said it would have been well if the defendants had had a solicitor to argue their case for them. The defendants said they could not afford to employ one. Mr. Hickmott then argued at length that, according to the section under which those proceedings were taken, the defendants were “rogues and vagabonds.” He said Mr. Slater’s object was entirely to protect himself, so that he might not hereafter be under the liability to be summoned for permitting these men to game in his house.

The Chairman said it was a very important case indeed, and was, he believed, the first of its kind. Formal proof of the charge was then given, and the magistrates took time to consider their decision. After the adjournment of the court for luncheon, the Chairman said the bench were not unanimous in opinion on the case, and they thought they ought to give the defendants the benefit of the doubt. At the same time they did not wish this to be taken as a final decision, and if Mr. Hickmott thought well to have the case reheard by other magistrates he was quite at liberty to do so, and the justices who were there that day would not sit upon the bench.

Mr. Hickmott said that as it was a very important case he would see the complainant about taking out another summons.