“DRAW POKER.”

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8188, 1 August 1912, Page 1

“DRAW POKER.”

AN UNLAWFUL GAME.

BILLIARD SALOON-KEEPER CONVICTED AND ri.N^D.

Reserved j udgment in favor of the prosecution. was delivered by Mr W, (j. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, in the case m which Sidney Palmer, billiard saloon-keeper, was proceeded ugaonst on a charge of keeping during May and Juno a common gaming house at 22, Marion street. One of the rooms in defendant’s house was fitted up as a card and smoke room with a curtain across the window. Defendant said that since lost Christmas ho uad invited some of his more intimate friends and customers to his house about a dozen times on Saturday aud Sunday evenings for a' game of cards. Ho also stated that those who went to the house on Saturday evenings, did so after 10.30 o'clock, when his billiard saloon closed. The evidence for the prosecution showed that on May 25th “draw poker’’ was played for money till after 4 o'clock on •the''following morning-and again on the night of Sunday, May 26th. 'On the night of: Juno .2nd; there was evidence that, cards were played in the same room td-aTate hour, - Lights were seen in the room on June oth at a late hour and a number of men were there. On the night of. Saturday, , Juno 22ud, at 11.30 o’clock, eleven men: were in the room; two of these men lived in the house. It was admitted that they had.,been playing ‘,‘draw poker" and- using counters. ■At tho hearing, the lion. A. L. Herdman, who appeared for defendant, submitted that the information must be dismissed on the law points. ' He contended that it had not been proved that Palmer b was a common gaming house; that there was no proof - that the defendant kept a common gaming house within the meaning of, the statutes, and that the circumstances of the case justified hie Worship in dismissing tho information, la New South Wales it had been decided that “draw poker" was not an unlawful game. Proof must be given that ths game was purely one of chance. According bo Mi: Justice Williams, under the Gaming and Lotteries Act it must bo shown that an unlawful game was one in wliich chance was the only element, and into which skill-did not enter at all.-De-fendant’s house was a private one, ond was not open to the public. Palmer made no money out of any game Which had been played in hie' house. “Draw poker" was a game in which skill was combined with chance and it could not therefore bo considered as an unlawful game. , His Worship was satisfied that there was a considerably greater element of chance than skill in the. game. There was evidence that an unlawful game was played at defendant’s house on May 25fh and 20th, and on June 22nd. There was also evidence that cards were played in the same room *to a late hour on June ,2nd and that persons were there to a late hour on Juno 9th. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it was rea- ; sonable to infer that'the, persons in defendant’s house- on June .2nd and 9th were.playing the same Jdnd-of. game that was played on the, other dates mentioned; The' fact that-defendant. used his house as a private residence - was of no importance,; as'the decision in the case of Rfex v. i J reedy made it immaterial- that the principal- use; of the house was for a legitimate object if in fact it was also used for tiie prohibited purpose. . Hie, Worship thought’ that defendant must be' convicted. ■

Defendant wafi 'fined ,£3,with costs' Ts. Leave to appeal was granted.