GAME OF SKILL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19143, 28 October 1927, Page 6

GAME OF SKILL.

EUCHRE TOURNAMENTS LEGAL. ' CASE HEARD IN COURT. ; That euchre tournaments, in .which/ the winners received prizes, constituted a breach of the Gaming Act, was the basis of a charge heard in the Lower Court yesterday. The Mr; E. D. Mosley, however, held that euchre ■was'rrtbre iff: a game of skill-than "one of chance, and dismissed the informationi , - . • William Alfred Britten was charged that. he used the Sydenham Football Hall as a common gaming house. Mr K D. Sargent, for defendant, pleaded not guilty. Chief-Detective Lewis stated that defendant ran a euchre tournament in the Sydenham Football Hall. Competitors were charged admission, and prizes were awarded the winners. The tournament was fairly run, but the prosecution was brought in view of a recent decision. The Magistrate: What ia the difference between euchre., and bridge, or -poker and solo whist? He added that he was familiar with most card games, and he did not consider that euchre was a breach of the Gaming Act. If euchre was an offence, then whist, one of the best games there were, must also be an offence. v. . . \ Mr Sargent stated that \ a similar charge had been dismissed about„ two years ago. The police had not prosecuted since then. Detective-Sergeant J. B. Young stated that he had : visited the hall on October 17th, and had interviewed the defendant. The' charge for admission had been 2s 6d. • . ' Mr Sargent submitted that euchre did not come within the meaning of the Act. It had not bene intended to go as far as that. Tho Magistrate stated that it was fortunate for the Court that it was familiar with many games of cards, and for the most part they were, perfectly innocuous. : Even the game of. poker could be played innocently!' Witlr* cards he was satisfied that, for the most part, they were mixed, games of skill and chance. In a euchre game the element of skill greatly predominated over the element of chance, which ceased when the cards were dealt. He did riot think that the.Gaming-Act had been framed to bring such a game within its power. Some judgments that had boen delivered on the subject were no doubt caused through the.lack of experience of ■ tho subject in • those who had to adjudicate on such cases; Under r the circumstances he did not think that a public nuisance was created by such- play. Some games 'might be played under conditions that might be injurious ■to the'individual, but it was not a Court of morals. The time might come when all card games might be deemed to . bo injurious to public morals. The information was dismissed.