The Globe. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 780, 20 December 1876, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1876.

The recent ruling of the Besident Magistrate of Lyttelton, that the use of the dice in the mode vulgarly known as playing " Yankee grab," comes within the legal definition of gaming, and renders the parties concerned amenable to punishment, is receiving a good deal of publicity. That there was any occasion for either the importance given by the Magistrate to this breach of the law, or for the notoriety with which it was re-echoed in some quarters, we are quite unable to perceive. It is another case of the mountain in labor bringing forth a mouse, and a very diminutive one it is too. Of course there never has been any doubt of the amusement referred to—this wretched " Yankee grabbing " —being an illegal one, when indulged in in a public place, and especially in a public house. Gaming reduced to its simplest legal expression, means playing at a game of chance for money or for some other valuables. And the practice which has grown of late years, of throwing dice for money or for drinks in licensed houses which are within the immediate jurisdiction of the law in the shape of licensing magistrates or police, is much to be reprehended. But why all this stir in this particular Lyttelton case, and for what reason is the latter clothed with so much importance ? A well-known maxim in jurisprudence hath it that " laws are made to protect the people " and not to oppress them." It is, besides, a pretty well understood axiom among the professionally educated, that were all the laws in existence, with which the British Constitution has blessed her Majesty's subjects, to be brought into complete operation exactly as they are written, scarcely a single individual would escape occasional punishment. A portion of a certain class of penal enactments is held in terrorem over the heads of incipient evil-doers, and is not meant to be enforced with that blind rigidity which, it is supposed, is fhe main attribute of the G-oddess of Justice. When, a few days ago, the landlord of a Lyttelton hotel was charged by the police with having ellowed gambling, i.e., dice-throwing, within his premises, the local magistrate became so struck with ihe all-importance of the case, as to adjourn judgment to a "*»»«* *y • wi- AtiMt.dav came, the Bench deJiTQred a labored ruling,

quoting freely from legal text books and citing from numberless recognised authorities. This, it was, we presume, that transformed the mole-hill into the mountain. The tenor of the Magistrate's remarks was to the effect that " Yankee grab " was gambling within the meaning of the law, and should in future be put down, even if the stakes at issue be other than money. We may at once state, that in Otago, convictions against publicans for permitting the game in question to be played on their premises, are of frequent occurrence ; and the performers themselves come in for their share of the penalty, as they would if they exhibited themselves in any other public place. These matters, in that and other parts of New Zealand, are dealt with as they should be here ; in fact, are matters of routine for the police. In this Lyttelton prosecution, it. would seem that a constable took the initiative, and there lies the hardship for Eobert Anderson, of the Albion Hotel, who, suddenly, it appears, Was pounced upon as a suitable victim, whereupon to pin a precedent, yet, the gambling which formed the basis of the complaint, was of the mildest form possible, the dice having been thrown to decide whether a larger or smaller amount should be paid for the purchase of a certain article, over the price of which the parties found guilty of that heinous offence had been higgling. Had they thrown up a coin in order to appeal to the traditional verdict of " head or tails," it is absolutely certain that the Magistrate's ruling would have applied in a similar painful manner, as that operation also would have been —legally speaking —gaming. It is a pity that the police should have begun so late in the day. However, better late than never, if the fiat has gone forth that " the law in such case "made and provided" should be allowed to have full sway. How widely spread this practice of throwing dice in public houses has been for years past is a matter of common notoriety. Policemen on duty even, have not unfrequently been seen joining in the alluring pastime. Will the guardians of the public peace and morality now stop at the " bones " ? or will they be enjoined to go further ? What about those little race-course enjoyments; the variety of which, at once strike the eye of anyone entering the course ? What about the many recognised devices in public billiard rooms, whereby money changes hands in a most innocent manner ? Will the lynx eye of the force be also brought to bear in those favourite resorts ? If so, let the public understand it clearly and have fair warning. This Lyttelton case was anything but a glaring one, and 'tis a pity that a more crying specimen of the evil was not pitched upon for the better vindication of outraged law. We thought that under Provincial rule, there was, at least perfect unification in the manner in which the administration of the law was locally carried out. It appears that such is not the case. Perhaps Abolition may remedy all this; and may allow the goose to share the same sauce served out to the gander.