FULL COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1101, 13 April 1911, Page 8

FULL COURT.

MUFF POOL AND BILLIARDS. SKILL OR CHANCE? OR MIXED SKILL AND CHAXCEr The I'ull Court, comprising the Chief Justice (.Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice William?. Air.-Justice Dcnni>ton, Mr. Justiro Edwards, and Air. Jur-tico Chapm-m, sat yesterday morning and rwisiderod the appeal of John Jackson, billiard saloon keeper, of Auckland, against a conviction by Air. E. C. Cutcen, S.AI. Jackson had been chargcd, under Section 1 of the Gaming Act, 100S, with— (1) Keeping a common gaming house; (2) using a room as a common gaming house; (3) knowingly and wilfully permitting a room to be used by other persons as a common gaming house, lie pleaded not guilty. Xo evidence was roiled, but the facts were agreed upon by the parties, and after hearing the argument or counsel Air. K. C. Cutten, S.M., convictcd defendant of the offence. The question for the opinion of the Court was whether the magistrate's determination was erroneous in point o£ law. The games played were ordinary English billiards and all varieties of the game such as snooker pool, muff pool, devil's pool, black pool, and general pool. The game usually played was that of English billiards, and all the games were games of skill, combined with an element of chance (of varying degree), but in no case did the element of chance approach in importance the element of -skill. Jiotli parties admitted that, a decision was sought on one information only (and this ease is to bo treated as a test case) to obtain a ruling in law as to whether defendant could be convicted.

Mr. F. Earl appeared for appellant, and J[r. J. W. Salmond, Solicitor-General, for respondent. Mr. Earl said that the question for the determination, of the Court was whether a licensed billiard-room, open to members of the public, with slight restrictions, and in which games of skill were played for small stakes, was a common gaming house within the meaning of the Gamins Act of ienc

Mr. Earl quoted authorities with a view to showing that the eame of pin pool was a gome of skill. Ho also argued that the Legislature had obviously been nt pains to explain what wes "a common gaming house," and had been careful to exclude games of skill. Mr. Salmond urged that billiards was a izame of skill, and that pool (played with marbles) was a same, of mix.-d chance and skill, and, therefore, a game of chance within the metming of the Act. The Chief Justice: You say. then, that the word ''chance" means "skill and chance."..

Mr. Salmond said "Yes," but went on to fay that a game of mixed skill and chance was a game of chance. Continuing, Mr. Salmond stated that his second point wo.s that every place kept for playing at o game ai chance for money was a common gaming house under the Act. In the third place, he urged that playing a game of skill for money made :i nlace a. common gamins house under the Act. He could candidly say, however, that he thought it exceedingly doubtful whether such a pronosition as this last could be supported. A fourth, and a subordinate point which had r.ot been touched on by" Mr. Earl, was that playing a game, of billiards on the terms that the loser paid for the (able amounted to gaming within the meaning of the. ' Mr. Justice Edwards: "What is the S Mr.' Salmond: "It is fid. for the table, your Honour. There is judicial authority on the pLMnt." Mr. Justice Denniston: "What is it? . Mr. Salmond: "I regret to fay, sir, that it's American." The Bench: "Oh!" Mr. Snlmond. went on to state that "chance" was something much narrower in. its meaning, than uncertainty. All same?. •he said, were uncertain in Iliat "tliev depended iinan the various accident; that might happen to human skill. Tf uncertainty was the same as chance, all games would be games of chance or mixed . chance and skill. Chance, he submitted, was the element of uncertainty put. into a game to make the issue depend, not on the human skill, but on fate. Mr. Justice Edwards: "There is no game in th-3 world in which there is no chance, is .there.: , ' Mr. Salmond instanced cricket and football. : . .- Sir. Justice. Edwards: "In a. cricket match it might rain whilst one side is in. Is that not chance? Again, a good play'ar in .i football match might sprain his ankle or might get a bad kick. Perhaps, you think the kick a certainty in any case." Mr. Salmond urged that the fact that th? marbles used in the game of pool were kept.secret made thn game a game of mixed chance and skill. . The Gaming Act, when it made a!! games of chance unlawful', included all games of mixed chance and skill.

Mr. Earl argued that the marbles used in tho game of pin nool did not constitute an clement of" chance. They simply made the frame more interesting and Rave it a variety : and zest. The Court reserved its decision.