MORALS PREJUDICED

Evening Post, Volume 137, Issue CXI, 10 June 1926, Page 10

MORALS PREJUDICED

EFFECT OF "ROLL-DOWNS"

PROPRIETORS FINED

PREMISES A COMMON GAMINGHOUSE.

As a result of tests conducted on Saturday, Mr. E. Page, S.M., has decided that the "roll-downs" are not games of chance within tho meaning of the Gaming Act. The game, however, although dependent to some measure on skill, is a gamble, and prejudicial to morals, and he holds therefore that the keeping of the premises is illegal. They are, in his view, a common gaming-house.

The judgment, which was given today, was in the case heard last week in which Harold Percival Bishop and Alfred Dawson, proprietors of a "rolldown" parlour in Manners street, were charged with playing, by way of gaming with tables and balls, and in view of persons in a public place, at a certain game of chance known* as the "roll-down," and alternatively with using the premises as a common, gam-ing-house. "The substantial question involved in the first charge," said his Worship, "is whether or not the game is one of chance within the meaning of the Gaming Act . . . The' prosecution admits that the game on its face is one in which an element of skill enters if a game is played on tables and with balls that are approximately true, but contends that the defendants' tables on the date of the alleged offence were so uneven and the balls were so untrue that the result of the game became a matter of pure chance." Mr. Page then mentioned the tests held on Saturday between three players who claimed some skill at the game, and three others who rolled the balls, used by the defendants on the date in question, without directing them at any particular holes. In this test the experts, won more than double the number of games won by their opponents. A further test was made with ihe ivory balls, which had been subs' ;uted for the wooden balls formerly in use. In this test, the experts won nearly four times as many games as the others. "NOT A GAME OF CHANCE." "I am satisfied that a substantial element of skill was involved ' playing the game under the conditions existing on the date of the charge," continued Mr. Page, "and that with the better balls now in use, success at the game mainly depends on skill, though a fair element of chance also exists. The game, therefore, is not a game of chance within the meaning of the Gaming Act." Referring to the second information of keeping a common gaming-house, Mr. Page continued: "The prosecution contends that the premises were kept for the purpose of playing for moneys worth at (a) a game of chance, or (b) at a game, whether of skill or chance, in such circumstances as to amount to a nuisance at common law. ' I have already dealt with the first of these grounds. With regard to the. second ground, it is difficult to lay down a rule as to what degree of playing a.-d wagering at a-- legitimate game will cause the premises in which the game is played to become a nuisance at common law. Tho offence is based upon an injury to the public morals. In 'Russell on Crimes,' the principle upon which common gaming-houses are punishable as nuisances is said to be that they 'are detrimental to the public morals, as they promote cheating and other corrupt practices, and incite to idleness and avaricious ways of gaining property great numbers whose time might otherwise be employed for the good of the community. . . ." His Worship also quoted Mr. Justice Best as saying: "It is quite clear that any practice that has a tendency to injure public morals is a common law offence. No game (unless prohibited by statute) is unlawful in itself, but every game may be rendered so by playing at it for an excessive stake; for it is the amounfplnyed for and not the name or nature of the game which is the essence of the game, and which constitutes an offence in the eyes of the law. ..." "NO INTRINSIC MERITS." "In the present case, it is- shown that the game of 'roll-down' has attained some degree "of popularity iv New Zealand, and it was extensively played at Dunedin during the Exhibition. It is also shown that at any time in the afternoon or evening, numbers of people may be seen taking part in the game or standing waiting for their turn at the tables. People of all conditions take part, though a rule has recently been made excluding children under fourteen years of age. '. . . There is no opportunity for cheating, no assemblage of people of bad character, and no nuisance or annoyance to adjoining premises. On the other hand, the game has no intrinsic merits . . . and its vogue is based solely upon the gamble associated with it. From a strict point of view, it may be contended that all gambling is prejudicial to public morals, but there arc many forms of it which arc permitted by the laws of this country, notably tho use of totalisators and the holding of art unions. PUBLIC MORALS PREJUDICED. '' Having in view the fact that a largo number of devotees are children and young people, that amongst the adults are probably a number who cannot well afford the money wasted on it, that the aggregate amount of play reaches substantial dimensions, and that, though dependent on skill, it is a gamble and not a game, I do not think its influence is beneficial. I think it is prejudicial to the morals of thoso or some of those who take part in it, and that the keeping of these premises is therefore illegal. They arc, vi my view, a common gaming-house. The defendants were convicted. On the application of Mr. R. Kennedy, who, with Mr. W. Heine, represented the defendants, the penalty was fixed at £5 Is to enable an appeal to be made. Security for appeal was fixed at £15 15s, plus tho penalty and costs amounting, to 19s. At the hearing, Inspector Rawlo conducted the prosecution.