GAMBLING AND THE LAW.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 77, 13 November 1911, Page 3

GAMBLING AND THE LAW.

There is some perturbation among whist-players in London over a decision of the County Court, That what is known as “coupon whist drive,” falls within the prohibition of the Gaming Acts. This particular form of whist tournament has become so popular of late years that the organisation of such gatherings has become quite a remunerative profession. “You pay your shilling,” says a writer in the “Daily News,” “cut and shuffle your cards, play as luck and skill may enable you, and 10, at tire end of the evening when the scores are reckoned up, you may find pourself the embarrassed possessor of a grand piano, a lady’s tailor-made costume, or (perhaps oven a suite of drawingroom furniture.” Now an unkind County Court has placed this form of amusement in the same category as the roulette table, and promoters of drives are hoping that a higher Court will reverse the decision. The writer, after dealing with this particular 'case, goes on to make some interesting remarks about the condition of tnc law on gambling. He describes it as “perhaps the most hopeless tangle of confusion in the whole fabric, of English legislation.” The whale escapes, blit the minnow is caught. The skilful hacker of horses can drive a coach and four through tho law, and what appear to ho innocent amusements are punished as forms of gambling. For instance, though according to one of the accepted canons of English law,,one may not sue for a gambling debt, there is a way out of this difficrilty. Brown owes Smith £SO on a wager, but when fist!ling day conies round he is short of money. Afraid that Smith may post him as a defaulter or tell his father, Brown asks for more time, promising to pay if that is granted. From that moment Smith has Brown in In’s clutches. Ho can sue for his money, for tho judges have decided that tho promise is a new agreement,' quite apart from the gambling transaction, and can form the basis of an action. Many gambling men take advantage of this ruling to recover money duo to them. A ■year or two ago the proprietors of a journal distributed coupons to the public free of charge, the numbers on certain coupons entitling the holders to prizes. Although there were no contributions by the prize-winners, the Court held that this advertising sc!•eme was a lottery. Tho writer thinks it curious “that there should ho so strict an interpretation of the law in the case of lotteries, and such an utter disregard for its spirit in the case of gambling debts. But, as has been already said, the whole law of lotteries and gaming in England is in a state of chaos, and craves Dior L , loudly for codification and amendment.”