The Daily Telegraph. SATURDAY, AUGUST 18, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3773, 18 August 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. SATURDAY, AUGUST 18, 1883.

What is an unlawful game ? This question is asked by tlic Christchurch Telegraph, and is prompted by a decision given by Mr Justice Johnston, sometime towards the end of July last. Our contemporary says the question has a good deal to do with tho general public in the interests of morality, because it appears that tho intention of the Legislature to suppress gambling in public-houses has been defeated. The facts as related are as follow :—lt appears that some persons were playing a game called "euchre" in a licensed house. At first, tho players confined their stakes to liquid refreshments, but afterwards went on to play for money. Tho landlord coming in put a stop to tho game, which created a disturbance, and the publican had afterwards to appear before tho Court to answer a chargc'of permitting gam-ling in his licensed house. He was fined by tho magistrates, and appealed. On the appeal thc° question arose—what was an unlawful game ? Tho Licensing Act docs not define what is an "unlawful game," although in clause 119 it is provided that "if any innkeeper suffers any unlawful game to be carried on on his premises " ho is liable to a penalty not exceeding ten pounds. The essence, therefore, of tho whole matter centred iv the question as to the lawfulness or otherwise of tho particular game. Whether, had the players been engaged _ in whist, cribbago, or the other games -which can bo played with cards—they would have been liable to the penalty of playing an unlawful game docs not appear. The researches of the learned counsel and His Honor clo not appear to have been able to discover from tho books what is an unlawful game. Here the difficulty arose, because the Legislature, whilst evidently desiring to put a stop to gambling in publichouses, has defeated its own intentions by passing the clause in an ambiguous manner. Iv the English Licensing Act this ambiguity is got over because it provides a penalty in case tlic licensee allows "gaming or any unlawful game to be played in his house or premises." In this clause there can be no mistake, as gaming is defined in numcr- • ous authorities as playing for money. But the material part of the English clause has not been incorporated in our Act, and in this view the judgment in the case referred to seems to be interesting to the Government, as unless some amendment is mado ' in tho Act, gambling cannot be suppressed in hotels. The counsel for the respondents endeavored very ingeniously to make the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881, applicable. But His Honor, on the argument, held that i this did not apply, as the Act did not, in his opinion, include licensed houses. Tho ) same opinion seems to havo been held by I His Honor after consideration, because, in the judgment delivered, it is stated that the Act referred to need not enter into tlic consideration of the matter before the Court. There can be no doubt that a very nice point arises as to tho meaning of the word "public place." The idea of His Honor seemed to be that "public place" ' meant a place in the open air where the public congregated, and could not Ibo construed to moan a room in a licensed house. Hence the appeal • was sustained, and the effect is. ' so far as can be seen on the surface, that playing for money in a licensed house is not an offence under the Licensing Act so long as it is not an "unlawful game." No one 1 has yet endeavored to show what really is an unlawful game, so that we aro driven, as it were, to comparison. "Euchre," by the dictum of the Supreme Court, is not an unlawful game ; hence it appears that other card games come under the same category, and therefore by law it is not an offence against the Act to play cards for money in aii hotel. That is decidedly opposed to the intention of the Legislature, but the fact remains that the licensee is not liable except for an unlawful game. Tho clause in the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881, relied upon by the counsel for tho respondent was as follows :—Every person playing or betting by way of wagering or gaming m any public place at or with any card or other article used as an instrument or means of . such wagering at any game shall, on conviction, ho liable to a penalty not exceeding £50, or to be imprisoned, kc. Under his Honor's definition the words '' public place means outside, such as racecourses, sports grounds, kc. Of courso under tho present clause tho Licensing Committee can take cognizance of the fact if brought before them that gaming has been permitted in a licensed house or houses. Still it would be better if the law on the subject were mado perfectly explicit ancl clear, and we should then bo able to get an answer to the query, 1 < < Wh at is an unlawful game ?''