CARD-FLAYING ON THE STREETS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7658, 8 June 1886, Page 3

CARD-FLAYING ON THE STREETS.

THE THREE-CARD TRICK. At the Police Court yesterday afternoon, before Messrs. W. Duncan, and J. P. King, Justices, * case of considerable importance was death with in regard to playing cards publicly in the streets or on the wharf. The statute provides for various games of cards, and the question arose whether " the three-card" trick was a game of cbance or skill. Francis MoAnally was charged with playing at a certain game of chance—the three-card trick —in a public place, to wit, Queen-street Wharf, on May 27. Mr. J. O'Meagher appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Pratt applied to have the charge brought under the Police Offences Act, as it was only under that statute that it could bo shown that the wharf was a public place. Mr. O'Meagher objected, as under the Police Offences Act the defendant's mouth would be closed. He submitted that the case should proceed under the Gaming and Lotteries Act. The Bench said they would leave it with the prosecution to eleot under which Act they should proceed. Sergeant Pratt decided to go on under the Police Offences Act, and in opening the case, went on to say that the evidence would go to prove that the offence was committed on the Queen-street Wharf, between seven and eight o'clock in the morning, when one of the steamer had arrived at the wharf. The defendant had openly played at a game commonly known as the "three- trick," challenging lookers-on to stake their money and name the card, and had won money by the transaction.'

George Carter, butcher, Adelaide-street, remembered being on the Queen-street Wharf on May 27, and was there as early as seven a.m. He saw the defendant on the second tee on the eastern side of the wharf. There were a good many people there. The defendant was playing cards, and betted on them, raising the stakes pretty high. Witness betted on them once. The defendant was shuffl'ng cards on a case, and challenged him to back the cards. Witness lost. He was along with a friend named Rodgers, who was also challenged by the defendant to play. Staked 10s, and won. An objection by Mr. O'Meagher to the witness describing the cards unless they were produced was over* ruled by the Bench. The witness resumed: There was an aoe of clubs and two threes of clubs. One of the cards had the corner turned up ; that was the peculiarity about it. It was the ace of clubs turned down when he betted, and then it was changed by another card being turned down at the corner. He was told that the swindle of the game was in turning the corners down. Since the tranaction the defendant bad said little to him about it. He had asked him in the street if he had informed, to which witness replied that he had not. In crossexamination the witness was not shaken in bis testimony. Thomas Rodgers affirmed that he was present on the wharf when the defendant was shuffling and manipulating the cards, saying nobody could pick up the card. If the defendant was watched the card could be detected. He had backed the oard and won, as ho noticed the card. ' He did not want to take the money, and requested the defendant to return Carter's money, which he would not do, so he handed his stake to Carter. Detective Hughes was called as an expert, and deposed that the game was played with three cards, two tens and an ace, one of which was backed. The game was fully 50 per cent, in favour of the player. Mr. O'Meagher then went on to address the Court for the defence, contending that the game was purely one of skill, not one of chance. He went on to quote from authorities on games of sport and pastime that it only came in where the quickness of the eye was concerned. Tn reply to the Bench, counsel said he had no evidence to offer, as competent persons who had a knowledge of the game would not come forward to give their testimony. The Bench took time to consider their decision, and in doing so, said that under the clause of the Aot, it was clear that it was gaming ; bat as the question of law had been nvolved, they would not decide that point, but would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the information,