At Thursday's hearing his Worship decided to hear two charges, one of using the premises as a gaming house and the other of permitting gaming to be carried on therein.
Mr. Goldring, defending, said that with regard to the second charge there was a very distinct onus on the police to prove "that the defendant knowingly and wilful-permitted gambling in the house. All the evidence so far adduced was that defendant was downstairs playing billiards. Upstairs one game of mahjongg was in progress.
Mr. © Faithfull—I have proved that the defendant is the owner of the premises. He has a two years' lease, and he sub-let the house contrary to the terms of his agreement. I have proved that he was on the premises, during the raid, and that the place was sumptuously furnished, and in every way fitted a gaming house.
The—Magistrtate—Have you proved that?
Counsel—Yes, by the evidence of the police officers.
The Magistrtate—We have had no evidence to prove that Tls. 6,000 passed hands for the furniture. Is that sum exorbitant considering the cost of furniture in Shanghai to day?
Mr. Faithfull—Tables were fitted up for roulette.
The Magistrate replied that the police might have a lot of evidence of this, but he had not heard it.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.