IN A CHINESE CLUB.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18278, 20 December 1922, Page 11

IN A CHINESE CLUB.

SUNDAY DIVERSIONS.

A RAID AND ITS SEQUEL.

APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT

The contention that the Chinese residents of Auckland were entitled to play their games of skill in their own club equally with Europeans was put forward by Mr. L. P. Lcary in the course of the hearing of an appeal from the decision of a magistrate before* M'r. Justice Stringer at the Supremo Court yesterday. The appellant was Wong Doo (Mr. Towle and Mr. Leary), who on August, 4 last was convicted" of knowingly permitting premises in Hobson Street to bo used for the purpose of unlawful gaming, namely, haing gow, and was fined £50 and costs. At that hearing tho defence contended that on tho evidence the house was not a common gaming house, but tho Court, held that it was. Notice of appeal was given, and the question submitted for the opinion of the Supreme Court was whether the finding of the Lower Court was an error in point of law. Tho appeal was opposed by Detective A. Bl Meiklejohn (Mr. Paterson). Counsel for the appellant argued that tho premises were not a gaming house. The premises were used as a club and accommodated resident members, while sick and poor Chinese were cared for. Thero was no attempt to hide anything that went on within the club, and on the night on which the police visited the premises a spiritual meeting, one of a series held on Sunday evenings, was in progress. There wa3 no reason to suppose that it was not a bona-fide meeting, and the people who happened to be gaming were the overflow from that meeting. They had merely gone into another room for a small game. The Chinese were entitled to have their rubber of %vhist at their club just as Europeans at theirs, was Mr. Leary's comment. It would be an untenable argument to say that European clubs were gaming houses because they allowed legal games of cards.

Counsel were opposed in their views as to the game actually in progress when the police arrived. The merits of three games were discussed. These were haing gow, which, it was asserted by Mr. Paterson, was purely a game of chance, and hing gow and ma chuck, both of which combined the element-3 of skill and chance, and were therefore claimed by counsel for Che appellant to be regarded as games of skill. A reference to the magistrate's ■written decision failed to disclose to the Court whether the magistrate had based the conviction on a game of chance or on one of skill and chance, and His Honor declined to proceed further until the point had been determined. The hearing was adjourned so that a clearer expression might be obtained from the magistrate.