SKILL OR CHANGE ?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3346, 12 October 1911, Page 7

SKILL OR CHANGE ?

A SHOWMAN’S WORRIES. “HOOP-LA” AND “RING-LEE” ILLEGAL. MAGISTRATE IMPOSES SUBSTANTIAL PENALTIES. As each Carnival Week approaches Gisborne finds itself invaded by showmen, who by various means endeavor to persuade the gullible to place their shillings in others’ keeping. This year two have had an initial set-back, they having had to answer charges in the Police Court before getting well under way in their occupation. The defendants were Albert Vance Stewart and Charles Baker, an employee, and the charges against them were brought under a section of the Gaming Act, 1908, for playing games of chance, known as “Hoop-la” and “Ring-Lee.” The first charge was preferred against Stewart for playing “Hoop-la,” and defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr. L. T. Burnard. Sergeant Hutton gave evidence to the effect that on Saturday last he visited the vacant section in Gladstone Road, in front of Chilton’s Hall, and there saw erected a table about 12ft long oy 4 or 5 ft deep. The table was covered with numerous articles of fancy goods of small value. A barrier was elected some little distance —2ft 9in from the table, and inside this defendant met his assistant were standing,_ with a number of wooden rings, similar to the one produced, and shouting, “Here you are, four for sixpence, or nine for a shilling, and a prize every time. _ The table was on the incline, making it difficult to secure a prize. After watching for some time, witness asked and was told that the game was known as “Lala.” Witness pointed out that it was “Hoop-la,” and was illegal, and advised defendant that he would have to close down. Defendant followed witness down the street and said he had paid £6 rent for the section, and asked permission to be allowed to play for the night. This was refused. About 6.15 p.m., when the game was still m progress, Detective Mitchell had a shillings worth of rings, and had ocular demonstration of the game. . His Worship: Did he draw a prize No. , ... . Mr. Burnard: He was not skilful en01lContinuing, witness said he took_ defendant’s name, also the last ring. Witness considered it was a pure game of chance, as the table was on such a slant that the odds were on it almost every time. In addition articles of greater value were placed on metal discs, which had to be completely covered before the prize was won, and owing to the extreme lightness the wooden ring jumped down invariably. Mr. Burnard: It required great skill to get the ring over ? Witness: No, I say chance. . Mr Burnard : You have played quoits ? —I was considered a champion m my time. Mr. Burnard: The very man I want. Continuing, witness explained that the game was entirely different to quoits. It was within the bounds of possibility, as with billiards, that a man could become skilful by constant practice, but he never had the opportunity of practice, as the proprietor never stayed any length of time. It was, in witness’s opinion, a game to extract money from the young and foolish. „ Mr. Burnard: Do you say all men are alike at the game ?—No. Well, there must be a certain amount of skill ?—No ; there might be such a thing as “fluking.” A man who continually followed the game around might acquire a certain amount of skill. _ , ~ In answer to .Mr. Burnard, witness said that a conviction had recently been entered in connection with a similar case (Haves v. Burk). His Worship pointed out that in the case mentioned the articles were placed under a glass cover, and the rings had to encircle a ring above. Detective Mitchell gave corroborative evidence, and said, he had stopped men playing the game in Dunedin. He considered the chances were 300 to 1 against the thrower. Mr. Burnard contended that because there was an element of chance in a game the game was not necessarily a game of chance. There were elements of chance in every game, .and in the present case skill was required to get the ring over the article. Defendant, giving evidence, stated the game was played all over New Zealand . His Worship: What has that got to do with the question as to whether it is illegal or not? Mr. Burnard: I think you will.be undertaking a big responsibility in declaring illegal a game that is recognised in other parts of New Zealand. His Worship: I cannot help what is recognised elsewhere. I have to decide "this Cci&G. Witness contended that the game was a skilful one, hut admitted that the chances were in favor of the table, or the game would not be played. A demonstration of the game was watched with interest in the Court, following which Charles Baker, an employee of defendant, staked that he knew the game of “La-La,” and he considered this a game of skill. After a time on© or two of the players got too good altogether, and they had to bar them. He was himself skilful at the game, and could depend on getting any article on the table. To Sergeant Hutton: Witness had been following these games for three years in Palmerston North and Auckland, but* had not been prosecuted beMr. Burnard suggested that his Worship should consent to a demonstration of the game before giving his decision, and his Worship consented. FURTHER CHARGES.

Baker was then charged with a similar offence, and the evidence of the previous ease was taken. Baker also pleaded not guilty to a further charge of playing “Ring-lee,” alleged to be a game of chance. Detective Mitchell said he knew tins irame, the necessary gear of which was a stand, a cloth, and a number of rings. The cloth produced had 33 discs of various colors painted on it. The figures on the discs ran from 6d_ to £l. There were six polished metal rings. The mode of working was to stand sft distant from the table, and the rings were generally sold three for 6d or six for Is. The player threw the ring on to the cloth, and should he completely encircle any disc with the ring he was entitled to the amount painted on that disc. It was a common practice to put a polished surface on the cloth and. then rub it over with oil. This was evidently so in the present case, and the figures on the discs were worn with polishing. It was therefore impossible for. ‘ the rings to remain where they were thrown. Witness had seen the game played all over New Zealand, and

it was purely a showman’s game. He had several times stopped the game and broken the tables. Sergeant Hutton stated-that at 9.30 p.m. on Saturday, October 7th, on a vacant section abutting on Gladstone Road, he saw the defendant playing the game mentioned. There were a number of boys and adults around the table, and one man was throwing. . Baker was in charge. Witness seized the table, rings, and cover, considering it a game of chance. The man who was throwing when witness arrived was about 3ft from the table. From the slippery nature of the table the element of chance was even greater than in “Hoop-la.” To Mr. Burnard: As an old quoit player he considered he should he able to play the game effectively if the cloth was not polished. Albert Vance Stewart deposed that in this game the players stood about three feet from the table, and if he got one ring half way over a disc he was allowed to knock it over the disc with the next ring he threw. His Worship consented to an ocular demonstration of the game in Court, remarking that he hoped there was no one about there taking cinematograph pictures, because he might be shown playing the game, or even as an onlooker. Witness, continuing, said that the. oiling of the cloth \vas an advantage to the player. His Worship intimated that he would not be prepared to give judgment until he had visited the showman’s shop. _ During the afternoon a demonstration of the games was given in a small shop in Grey Street, and his Worship later gave judgment as follows:—“I ha-ve seen the mode of operation in connection with the two games, and I am of opinion that they are both games of chance within the meaning of section 8 of the Gaming Act, 1908. I am satisfied that there is a much greater element of chance than of skill in either of the games. I have no doubt that a person with considerable practice would he better than a novice at the game, but even then the chance would he more in favor of the table. lam of opinion that defendants have brought themselves within the provisions of the Act. I shall therefore record a conviction. Mr. Burnard pointed out that the cases had been brought as test cases. After pointing out that the maximum penalty was £SO, his 'Worship fined Stewart £5, with costs 7s, m default 14 clays’ imprisonment, and Baker £2 and costs 7s, or six days’ imprisonment, on the first charge, and £3 and costs 7s m connection with the “Ring-lee’ case, default being set at eight days. Accused were allowed 48 hours in which to pay the fines.