EUCHRE TOURNAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 19801, 27 February 1928, Page 5

EUCHRE TOURNAMENT

PROHIBITED BY GAMING LAW DUNEDIN MAN CONVICTED Charged with having used tho premises Known as tho Waratah Tea Rooms as a common gaming house, William Thomas Rowlands appeared before Mr H. W. Bundle in the CityPolice Court this morning. Mr W. Ruffell appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty. Chief-detective Cameron said the defendant had hired different rooms on Saturday nights for several weeks past and advertised that progressive euchre tournaments would Lake place. On December' 28 Detective Farquharson went to a tournament and discovered that it came within the Gaming Act as laid clown in recent decisions. Defendant was otherwise not a gamester in any way, and was a decent man. “Even though be plays euchre,” interjected the magistrate (Mr 11. W. Bundle).

The chief detective wont on to say that he did not suggest defendant was a gamester such as a bookmaker, though he had to be charged under the same section of tho act.

His Worship asked what happened at tho euchre tournament. Chief-detective Cameron said there was an admission charge of 2s 6d. and went on to describe the manner in which the game was played. It was not a very remunerative tournament in the present case, defendant probably making about £1 or £1 10s. “Is the game very detrimental to the public morals?” asked tho magistrate.

“ It has been hold so,” replied the chief detective. “ft has been held to be an unlawful game.” The speaker added that a decision of Mr Justice Adams in Christchurch the other dayupheld that view Mr Ruffell said the present case was different from the Christchurch ono in that orders were given on business houses instead of money prizes. Such tournaments had been carried on for a number of years, and were looked upon as a source of innocent amusement. There was no suggestion of fraud or improper practice. On tho night in question defendant had barely made enough to cover expenses. It was the first case of the kind in Dunedin. In view of all tho circumstances counsel suggested that a nominal penalty would meet the case. ' The Chief Detective said it did not appear as if it were generally known that patrons of the tournaments were also liable.

“You don’t propose to take proceedings against them?” queried the magistrate.

“No, but T ask your Worship to make it known,” replied the Chief Detective.

Mr Bundle agreed that people who attended common gaming houses were liable.. The Chief Detective said there were expenses amounting to 2s 6d, the price of tho detective’s admission.

Mr Bundle: “Did ho play?”

“ Yes. He was there under instructions,” replied the Chief Detective, who added that the case seemed to bo treated as a joke. Mr Bundle said bo understood tho police must enforce tho law. Mr Ruffell said that as soon as the decision of Mr Justice Adams was known in the Christchurch case the defendant had advertised cancelling his tournament for last Saturday night. Ho immediately took steps to discontinue.

His Worship said he thought tho defendant acted in a bona fide way, and he did not think the ease called for the imposition of a penalty’. A conviction only would he entered.