Subtleties Of The Law.

Samoanische Zeitung, Volume 19, Issue 34, 23 August 1919, Page 3 (Supplement)

Subtleties Of The Law.

Crows Prosecutor's trjiaeit. Mr. R Whitaker gave a lucid ai.d detailed exposition of the law heating on the case. The law said thnt anyone who made a trade of a !>iiuie of chance should be punished, He d»Bn<?d a game of chance as tme in which j.he decision of win or lose depended whoily or piincipaily

upon chance, i.e., u po n events which were beyond human caleolation, and independent of the power, skill, or judgment of the persons playing. If those conditions ' Were present, notwithstanding that as a rule the game might be regarded a< a "game of skill" it came under the section as a game of chance. Tn thie case the game was poker, and that game depended principally on the chance of good cards falling to a player. The winning of the game depended very largely on (hat chance, notwithstanding that a great deal of •kill and judgment enter in•to ihe play subsequently. Bat the section requited uhu that there must be " a stake of value." In this connection they mnst take into consideration the whole of the conditions under which the game was played, and especially the social and financial position of the players. It was not however a question whether the loss could be borne without disadvantageous financial consequence to the players, but rather whether a " stake of value " formed the object of the game. In this case there was no doubt that, taking into con-ider-ation the circumstances <>i the players, there was such a. stake of value as to bring the case within the section. Coming to the phrase " making a trade of it " the Crown Prosecutor Baid that in order to make a trade of the game the mind of the player most be bent on winning. If a player conducted his game without regard to winning or losing and only from pure love of the game itself, then the requirement of the section would not be present. In this case it was not contended that accused played for mere love of the game. On the contrary it had

been shown that in order to make sure that in any event he should gain something, certain moneys were paid to him out of each jackpot played. Nor was it necessary to show that the accused committed the act od repeated occasions. It sufficed to show that he was prepared to do so on a favourable opportunity, For the assumption that accused made a trade of the «arae it was only necessary that one game should be proved to have been conducted for a stipulated stake. Accused did not play with the two witnesses on account of social intimacy, as it would be unthinkable that friends would be expected to pay for the use of the room and lights. According to his,

the Crown Prosecutor's rea-ling <>J the law the taki»i« part in games of chiinco was not in itself punish- »" hns long m the features he had enumerated were not present, but i»nce nver the line of demarcation there was an offence, as in the case nwler review.

Verdict.

Accused was convicted and si ritericed to one month's imprison'"••nr with labour, und in addition lo -i Hne of £1.3 to pay the f - s of rhe prosecution £4 19<?.