THREE-CARD MONTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 139, 13 June 1888, Page 5

THREE-CARD MONTE.

GAMING AT ELLERSLIE,

"FOOLS AND THEIR MONEY ARE

SOON PARTED."

A man named William Noble was charged at the Police Court this morning, before Mr H. C. Baddeley, R.M., with having committed a breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Act by playing a certain game of chance, to wife, three-card trick, at Ellerslie on the 9th of June.

Sergeant-Major Pratt conducted the case for the prosecution on behalf of the police.

Mr Cotter appeared on behalf of the ac cused.

John Truscotb, miner, resident at the

Thames, deposed that on Saturday, the 9th of June, he was on the Ellerslie racecourse. He saw the defendant in the urinal. He saw the defendant wet a piece of paper and put it on the back of a card, of which he had three on a box. The accused had a mate with him, who was shuffling the cards. The mate said, "Now, gentlemen, 'pick the card Jack of Clubs." He then said, "£2 you can't pick it." The accused ihen bet £2 again and lost. The cards were again shuffled and the accused then tore a corner off one card. The accused said to witness, "Now, then, you can pick it." Witness bet £2 and picked the card with the corner off, and it was not the right one. After the piece was torn off the corner of the card the accused's mate shuffled them. Witness lost his £2. The cards were again shuffled and witness bet £3, and again lost. Witness bet £4 next time and again lost. He did not bet any more. Altogether, he lost £9. The defendant covered the cards with his umbrella every time the cards were shuffled. One of the by-standers then took witness away. He lost his £9 in about five minutes.

By Mr Cotter : He never saw the accused or his mate before that date. He had never before seen the three-card trick played. He learned it to his sorrow. He was not in liquor, being a total abstainer. Witness saw the defendant bet with the other man. He lost once and won once. Witness did not sec defendant receive any of his money. Edward Gunning, bootmaker, Onehunga, deposed to seeing the last witness playing the three-card trick with the defendant. He caw defendant cover the cards with his umbrella until his mate got the money, then he uncovered the cards. He saw the last witness pull out a roll of notes and back the card. He lost every time. Witness had seen the defendant and his mate in company together at the football match England v. Auckland. A third man was with them on both occasions. They were then outside Watties Hotel on the Manukau Road, playing the three-card trick.

By Mr Cotter: The umbrella was put over the cards until the money was placed, and the card was then picked.

Detective Hughes was called in to illustrate how the three-card trick was played. He did so with admirable dexterity. He also deposed to having arrested the prisoner at Ellerslie. He explained that the game was played with confederates, whose duty it was to draw the public on to play. The game could be played without confederates. The game was not a fair one, as the cards were manipulated by the confederates, such as tearing nicks in the cards or turning down the corners. Of course the corner of the court card was not torn off. The player had two chances to one, and the other man was always bound to lose in" the end.

The witness and Mr Cotter then played a game, when the representative of the Bar spotted the card, quietly remarking that he thought the witness was playing " low down," and could do it much smarter if he chose. ■

Witness said that there was not the remotest chance of a player picking the card with a skilled dealer. It was not, in his opinion, a game of skill. The card was always shown before each bettingl. There certainly was skill in handling the cards. Ib was a combined game of skill and chance.-

Mr Cotter contended that showing the face of the card rendered the g?;me purely a game of skill. It was a question of the dexterity of the hand against the quickness of the eye. He argued that no person would bet level when the chances were two to one against him. It was simply a case of backing1 the eye against the hand. He considered that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant had played on that day with the informant.

His Worship said that, ho was of opinion that the defendant had assisted.

The evidence showed that) he was evidently one of a gang of swindlers. He considered that the case was quite, clearly proved. Prisoner would therefore be sentenced to pay a fine of £50 and, costs, or in default three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Sergeant-Major Pratt said that a sum of money had been found in the possession of the accused. He wanted to know whether or not His Worship would order it to be handed over to the man who had been swindled.

His Worship said that he had no power to make any such order.