LICENSING LAWS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1851, 4 September 1906, Page 3

LICENSING LAWS.

lS BILLIARD PLAYING FOR DRINKS LAWFUL?

At Auckland His Honor Mr Justice Edwards, sitting in chambers at tho Supreme Court, hoard the appeal cas Marshall v. (Voan. This was an appon by George Marshall, liotelkeeper, of Ka wakuwa, lhtv of Islands, from the deei sion of the stipendiary magistrate (AT Gloraneo) whereby lie convicted appollan of an otlonco under the Licensing Act and intlictod a lino of 5s and costs. Mi J. C. Martin was for appellant and Mi Tole for respondent. Hrielly the facts of the case are that on November 15, 1 ( J05, tho appellant, being tho licensee of tho Junction Hotel, Kawakawa, is held to have permitted gambling on licensed premises, by allowing twomon to play a gamo of billiards for drinks. Tho magistrate, in entering a conviction, held that though billiards was a gamo involving an amount of skill, it nevertheless also necessarily imported a largo element of chance, and that to play tho gamo of billiards in a licensed houso for drinks amounted to gambling under, and was in contravention of, the Licensing ing Act, 1904, In submitting tho oaso for tho appelhint, Mr Martin draw attention to the wording of the Now Zoalaud and English Aots, and also oontoudod that a gamo of billiards was a gamo of tkill and not of ohanor, and, iheroforo, did not oomo within tha meaning of the Aot, not being an unlawful game, Tho English LioonsiDg Act was passed in 1872, and contained a prohibition against allowing 11 gaming or any unlawful game.” Tho New Zoaland Aot was passed in 1881, and only oontained u prohibition against allowing any unlawful gamo." Tho Suprome Oouit had held that unlawful games were only those declared to be unlawful by statute. In 1904 the New Z 'aland amondingstatute

was passed, prohibiting 11 gambling or any unlawful game.” Tho English Courts had hold that playing at any game for money or money’s worth was gaming, and if " gambling ” and " gaming ” meant th esamo thing, tho English deoisions concluded the matter, and the oonviction must stand. However, as the New land legislature, having the English Aot and decisions in front of it, had in its amendment substituted the word “ gam bling ” fjr 11 gamiog ” the colonial Aot did | not mean the same thing as the English Act, but used the word "gambling ” in the proper sense, i.o , that tbo gaming must be exoessive either in play or stakes. Further, one of the New Zealand judges, as well as one of tho English judges, had expressed a doubt whether either tho Eoglish or (he New Zealand Aot would app'y to gimes of skill, and that question was also now submitted to the Court for decision. Counsel quotedoaees and autbo rities in support of his oontention. Mr Tole, for respondent, held that the terms ‘'gamiog” aud “ gambling” were synonymous, and quoted several Eoglish deoisions supporting the magisterial do oision,

His Honor: I should say that ia oommon parlacos tho man who played a gams of billiards for drinks oould hardly be called a gamblsr. Mr Toli: No. I would not call him a gambler, but wou'd say that the aot was an aot of gambling. Although a game may be lawful in itself, it beoomes unlawful when money is staked, His Honor: Would you oalled billiards a game of chance ? Mr Tole : Absolutely, your Honor, after many years’ experience of the game ; not, of course, of lata years. (Laughter.) His Honor; My experience is that the game of billia-ds is essentially a game of skill.

Further argument was heard, and his Honor reserved his decision,