EUCHRES FOR CASH PRIZES

Hokitika Guardian, 23 February 1928, Page 4

EUCHRES FOR CASH PRIZES

BREACH OF GAMING ACT. JUDGMENT FOR APPELLANT. CHRISTCHURCH, Feb, 22. According to a judgment given by bis Honour Mr .Justice Adams in the Supreme Court yesterday, progressive euchre, as played in the Sydenham football Hall on October 17th last, was illegal, bis Honour contending tin* game came under tlie Gaming Act. Under the Gaming Act. DetectiveSergeant .). B. Young, laid an information against A. \Y. Britten, who promoted the games, and the information was later dismissed by Mr E. O. Mu-ivy, S.M. Helve tiivo-«Ser-gvanl Young appealed, and bis Honour Mr .) us live Adam:; allowed the appeal, holding that the Magistrate bad acted upon an erroneous view ot the law governing tlie ease. Ten guineas costs and disbursements were also allowed. and tin: cast* was remitted to tin* Magist rate, with an opinion that .Britten should be convicted. ■'The only facts stated in the ease.” said bis Honour, “are that it was admitted that the premises were properlv conducted, and the games pro- ! pe.ly controlled; that the game of 1 euchre was played in the hall on tlu* date in question; and that a charge j was made, for admission anil prizes were competed for. On flic date mentioned in the iniormation the | premises were used by tlu* respondent for the pur]wise of the playing ol progressive euchre tor money jiriz.es under his management and control. 'J be jiubTie were invited by advertisement, a sum of* 2s (id being paid for admission. A number of tables were provided for the use of player.-w Brizes up to CIO were offered. Upwards of 250 persons paid for admittance and took jitirt in the games. In playing four persons sit at each table, two playing against tbo other two. When a game is finished at a table tlie winners of that game move to another (able, and play with other partners taken at haphazard. This process is continued until play is stopped, when the prizes are given to those players who have the largest number of wins to their credit, ft was admitted that the 2.-. fid jiaid by each player was so paid in exchange for an assurance that the respondent would pay the amounts offered as prizes to tlie winners. “Counsel for the respondent, Ylr F. I). Sargent, contended that the whole of Section !tfl of the Gaming Act was limited by the heading and the language of sub-sect ion (1) (a) to betting transactions, and that what was done in this case was therefore not within that section, and that in considering whether the thing done was in contravention of the section, one of the tests to be applied is whether the game is one of chance. “I do not agree. 'I he section is derived from ,Sections I and 2 of tlie Betting Act (England). The first, part of .Section I of that Act deals with bets, and betting, and the second part of the same section is in tiro same words as 36 If) (b) of the Claming Act.” The decisions on tlie construction ol the second part of Section 1 ot the English Act were in point, bearing in mind that there was a preamble to that Act. which, it was ngruod, limited its scope. Chief .Justice Coleridge held 'that the two jiarts of the section dealt with separate and distinct offences. The same learned Judge said that the Court ought not to put a limited construction on the second part of the section, and ought not to decline to give effect to plain words when the same section mentioned both betting and other transacations, even assuming that there was any foundation for tlie argument that tlie transaction in question was something different from a bet. FI is Honour also quoted a decision ay Mr Justice Ridley. “I conclude from these authorities bat Section 30 of the Gaming Act is :o lie read literally*, that paragraph ,b) of sub-section (1) is to be rend as in independent enactment; that in a arosecution tinder tlie provisions of hat paragraph it is immaterial whelier the game is one of skill, or of nixed skill and chance, or of pure lmnce ; that the text is. as stated in dex v. Peers, Rex v. Brown, and aises a question of fact,” said his lonour. His Honour concluded: —“In Hawaii v. another and Sinclair, a rolling own ease, the Chief Justice, Sir diaries Skerrett, assumed that the, ame was not one of chance, but held ] bat tlie conviction of the appellants i ar using the ijreptises as a common aming-house under Section 4 of the anting Act should be affirmed on the

ground, among others, that what had been done by them was an offence against Section 36 (1) (b). It follows from that decision, with which I entirely agree, that a-conviction for the offence'of using premises as a common gaming-house may lie sustained by facts which establish a breach of Section 3f5 (1) (b).” Mr Donnelly appeared for appellant (informant in the lower Court).