Gambling in a “Chip” Shop.

January 1897

Mexborough and Swinton Times January 8, 1897

Gambling in a “Chip” Shop.

William Morris, fried fish dealer, Conisborough, was charged with committing a breach of the licensing act at Conisborough on December, 19.

Mr Baddeley appeared for the defendant.

Sgt Brown said on the day in question at 8:10 p.m. he went to the top of Tickhill Street, New Denaby, where the defendant had a fried fish shop. With PC Evans he watched about half an hour. They could see through the window, and saw the shop filled with about 20 boys and girls. The defendant was writing in the book and witness heard him say a boy named Brownsworth had won.

Witness, went into the shop, and asked the boy what he had won, and he said “three spice fishes” and he had won them by guessing at the number of peas in a bottle. Witness looked at the book. There were 19 names down, and Brownsworth was the nearest with 651. The boys had paid a halfpenny each, and Morris had collected the money.

While talking to the boys he saw bran tub in the shop, and several boys admitted they had dipped in their bran tub, and one boy, Mark Kay, said he had paid 5p, and had secured a number of prizes, Ambrose Massey, Joseph Harrison, and James Mc Loughin also said they had been dipping in the tub, and had secured prices.

Witness told the defendant he should report him for permitting gambling.

Cross-examined by Mr Baddeley; there were no blanks, were there? – No.

Superintendent Blake; Yes, there were, what about their guessing competition?

Mr Baddeley: I am talking of the bran tub.

In answer to further questions the witness said there was no secret about the bran tub

Mr Baddeley said he did not intend to dispute the facts. His client did not know that the guessing competition was illegal. With regard to the bran tub it was a thing which they could use every day at church and chapel bazaars. There were no blanks, and that was not the case in bazaars.

The beach made an order for the payment of costs, and intimated, they would require an undertaking from the defendant, that the offence would not be repeated.