The Waipukurau Press. Friday, February 23, 1906. BILLIARDS FOR DRINKS.

Waipukurau Press, Issue 20, 23 February 1906, Page 2

The Waipukurau Press. Friday, February 23, 1906. BILLIARDS FOR DRINKS.

—o — The Licensing Amendment Act, 1904, was prolific in controversy when its principles were before the country, and now that the law is upon the statute book it appears to be no less profilic in litigation. It at last appears to have been decided betyond doubt that the playing of cards for drinks is unlawful and the same application has now been extended to billiards. The case in which the decision was made was heard at Kawakawa, on January 12, the licensee of the J unction Hotel being charged with (1) permitting gambling on his licensed premises by allowing billiards to be played for drinks and (2) conniving at gambling. Section 4 of the Licensing Acts Amendment Act, 1904, says that every licensee who permits or connives at gambling, or the playing of any unlawful game on his licensed premises is liable to a fine not exceeding £lO. In the course of his finding the Magistrate said : “ It is clear from the facts of this case that the defend nts have done no more than many hundreds of their confreres have done in and out of the colony, and it remains for this Court to say whether a licensee ‘ permitting ’ or ‘ conniving at ’ the playing of billiards for money, or for drinks, whether permissively, or in a direct and active manner, is permitting or conniving at gambling, or the playing of an unlawful game within tne meaning of section 44 of the Licensing Act, 1904. The Court is aware that a conviction, if recorded, would have a very far reaching effect, and might be seriously detrimental to the trade of many houses, but it must be conceded that these businesses are run more for the benefit of the few than the many, and if the conduct of these houses is unlawful, in the sense of being disallowed by . the Licensing Acts, that conduct must be restrained as much as any other business concern which may be

carried on, and which is so seriously detrimental to the public interest as to becowe immoral and an infringement of a restraining statute, riven church bazaars, art unions, and such like means of- raising funds for the benefit of large sections of the community come under this restraining influence, and are permitted to carry on lotteries only oy special leave of the Minister. Can there be any difference made infavor of publichouses? Although playing the game of billiards in a licensed house is not a ‘lottery,’ and is in a wide sense a lawful game, I am strongly of opinion that it amounts to ‘ gambling ’ under the Licensing Act above quoted to play the game of billiards in a licensed house for drinks, or whereby the loser of the game has to pay for the use of the table, as it imports such an element of chance as contravenes the statute, and amounts to gambling. The decisions given by the superior Courts, both after and before the statute, are directly in support of this view of the law. . . . . I agree with the Crown Solicitor that if billiards were such a game of skill that there was no element of chance in it, the best man should and would in all probability win every lime. Iris just this element of chance which makes the game a gamble under ordinary conditions. Of course there are a few exceptions, as, for example, where world’s champions play against even very strong opponents, that it may be said to be a foregone conclusion, although the average player found in New Zealand who usually frequents hotels, finds the chances are mostly on the side of the stronger player, and although this chance may be attempted to be adjusted by points given by the stronger io the weaker player, still it is almost impossible to predict the conclusion, consequently the chance remains; and the evidence offered in this case, though not considered strictly expert, when sifted cannot but lead to this conclusion. . . . But apart from

the legal aspect of these cases, the moral aspect cannot be overlooked, and it is quite clear to me that the encouragement of the playing of billiards for drinks is very liable to have most prejudical results to the community if carried on to any excess. It is impossible for the bounds to be set, or for the police to say what does or does not amount to excess, and therefore I think the whole practice was intended to be prohibited by the Legislature.” Having arrived at this conclusion the Magistrate imposed a nominal line of ss, with costs amounting to £4. Since the table must be paid for by some one it would appear to be unreasonable to attempt to stop the common piactice, namely, that the loser shall pay, but as the law now reads, and in view of the terms of the decision recorded above, it would not be surprising if such an attempt were made.