Another chapter in the "Wheel" cate was concluded in HM. Police Court, on July 2; when the Regietar, Mr. A. J. Martin, after strenuous defence, found agains: lis. RP, Philips on a charge of haunting oF resorting to a common gaming house at 191C. Bubbling Well Road, and, as in the cate of previous defendants "on a similar Charge, bound him over in his own recognizances for §200 not to again. Mr. B. Urban conducted the prosecution (inthe absence of Mz. G.'H. Wright) and Mr. Ranald G. MeDonald (associated with, Major Holeomb) appeared for the When the Court opened, the Registrar announced that he was amending the charge by the omission Section Mr, MeDonald—Is it not xather tate in the day?
The Registrar—It can be done any time under Art. 60 of the Order Mr. MeDonald—You will appreciate that this has somewhat taker, te by surprise, "The Registrar—Would soa like to consider it before the decision.
Given? Tam quite prepared. to adjourn if you think ft necessary, fat T do not think it makes Me, MeDonald—I will leave it, reserving auch have in certain events, Registrar then read his written judgment, as fellows!
The accused is charged for th May. 26," 1929," unlawfully tio haunt or resort to 3. common erning house carried on in certain own as No. 51, ing Well Road, Shanghai, cot trary to 33 Henry Vill, C9.
The charge is similar to that brought against fr. J. 8. Graham gave a decision on June 19 last.
There are two differences only. In this case the charge has been amended by the omission of "Section The numbering of the sections of the Act under which the charge is brought differs in the Act as found in Chitty's Statutes, Vol. 5. pp. 43.35, and in the Statutes at Large, Vol. 8 pp. 79 to 87.
I find it more convenient to refer to the numbering in the statutes large. Section 12 penalizes every person using and haunting common Eaming houses, and Section 14 (3) empowers justices ete. to bind over.
Tue other difference is that in the case R. v. Graham there was direct. evidence that the accused was in the common gaming house, whereas in the present case the evidence is, circumstantial.
The Accused's Defence For the accused it has een urged:
That no offence has been disclosed by the charge.
"That there fs no evidence that the accused was at the place alleged {orbe a common gaming house.
3."That the Act under which the charge i brought is confined to England and Wales and cannot sophed to. British subjects In China.
"That if the act is applicable to Brilish subject in China, its only able in criges where the com gaming house ie occupied and Tun Uy persons, subject to. the Jurisdiction, and that it is necessary for the prosecution to. prove that the persona who occupy and ran the Common gaming house are fubjec: fo the juriadietion of the Court.
5. That there is no proof that the premises 2510 were a common That there is no proct that the accused haunted, resorted, and pay: fol at 151¢- Bubbling Well Roos.
Twill Bret-deal with the second point 'The evidence before the Coste that in the early morning of May 2p" last about 160" people were on the top floor of 1916 Battling Well, Read, that "people were gambing there' at roulette, that news came hat. the poe "were outside the premises, that gambling stopped and innings were. paid out and. that shout 115 am. the people. there began to move downstaiee, that the building there are fats where people live who have nothing to-do frith the wheel, and that between 125 am, and d, am. the accused came out of 1610 Bubbling Well Read
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.