THE “ROLL-DOWN.”

Otago Witness, Issue 3782, 7 September 1926, Page 19

THE “ROLL-DOWN.”

AN ILLEGAL GAME. WELLINGTON, August 30. The conviction of Alfred Dawson and Harold Percival Bishop, who ran a “ roll down ” parlour in Manners street, by the magistrate on a charge of using the premises as a common gaming house was upheld in the reserved judgment of his Honor the Chief Justice, which was delivered to-day in the Supreme Court upon their appeal from the magistrate's conviction. In the course of his judgment his Honor said:—“There is no opportunity for cheating at the game, there is no assemblage of people of bad character and no nuisance is caused to the adjoiuing premises. On the other hand, the ‘roll down ’ lias no intrinsic merits as a game. It is not a game which, like pool or wbist, would be played for pleasure and the interest of playing it. One cannot think that any players would bother with it for its own sake. Its vogue is based solely upon the gambling associated with it. though the amount of each stake is not large. The games follow one another in fairly quick succession, and many players continue to play the game for a considerable time. For the purpose of this case the following questions must be considered: — 1. Was the game, whether it be of chance or skill, played in such circumstances as to amount to a nuisance, whether at common law, as being prejudicial io public morals for any reason whatever, or because so declared by statute? 2. Were the chances of the game 6c played equal to all players, including in the term the persons by whom the game is managed, as against whom other players stake the play or bet? 3. Was the game ployed under circumstances which at common law constituted a shop or common gaming house ? “ It is clear that if the game played was a pernicious game in the public interest, or played under conditions which rendered it prejudicial to the morals of tho community, then a place which is opened aud used for the purpose of playing the game would be a common gaming house. In the present case it is clear that the game was displayed in a manner calculated and intended to attract and allure all classes, irrespective of the fact whether they were men, women, young people, or children. It undoubtedly tended to encourage the spirit of gambling, and its main attraction, as the magistrate has found, was not the pleasure of exer cising one’s skill, but the indulgence in the gambling instinct. It is clear that the appellants were deliberately exploiting for their own profit the gambling instincts of thoughtless people and of many women, children and young people. I agree with the magistrate that it is impossible to attribute any merit to the g*Lme, or to find any solid reason why it should be played . except for the indulgence of the propensity to gamble. It was impressed upon me that the stakes were small. It was said that they were or ‘Lilliputian.’ This does not seem to me to affect^the present question. The stakes, though in themselves, may be considerable to many of the players who were lured to play the game. Furthermore, the very smallness of the stakes is the reason of the popularity of the game, and > is the very reason which makes it profitable to those running it. The smallness of the stake appeals, probably, to a very large section of the community. The thoughtless people who are lured to play by the open invitation of the game and by the hope of getting a box of sweets of much greater value than the amount of their stake are perhaps inexhaustible in number. I am satisfied that the mere smallness of the stakes in the present case, and having regard to the conditions estab lished in the evidence, does not prevent tiie game from being injurious to the public morals. Having regard to the utter futility of the game in its attraction for thd 1 young and thoughtless, and to the encouragement that is necessarily given to the gambling instinct, I am in complete accord with the decision of the learned magistrate that it is a game which has a tendency to injure the public morals. It requires no stretch of the imagination to conjure up tho evils which would arise if this system of gaming were declared to. be lawful. Places of this kind would multiply and produce a great evil, even though their season might be ephemeral. All sorts of articles of more or less value could be disposed of under this pernicious system, ano legitimate and wholesome trading could be gravely hampered. What the appellants really seek is a recognition as lawful of principle which carried to its logical conclusion would entail very disastrous consequences to the public morals and the publio welfare. The result, therefore, must be that the shop in Manners street, kept and used for the game of “Roll Down” must be taken to be a common nuisance and unlawful, and also a common gaming house. The conviction is. therefore, affirmed with £ls 15s costs and disbursements, payable by appellants to respondent.