CHANCES WITH DARTS

Taranaki Daily News, 16 June 1930, Page 11

CHANCES WITH DARTS

“LECKIE, SARROM, DONOVAN” " ;— i BREACHES OF THE GAMING ACT! SEVENTEEN .SHOWMEN CONVICTED Because they were concerned in the •conduct of chance at the New I’lym -nth winter show 17 men were each fined' £2 by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., on Saturday rierning. Ulis was the result cf a comprehensive ra-.J Lt the police on Friday after: c-m. when they confiscated many sots of ap used in tae : laying of dart games known as "Le-ckie, Sarron, Donovan” or “One, Two, Three.” Several of the canvas targets were pinned on the walls of the courtroom while Detective Meiklejohn threw a dart or. two to demonstrate the pastime: The targets, he said, were placed at the efid of a table about six feet long and tho object was to pierce one of the. numerous small squares each marked with an L, an S. or a D, or, alternatively, with a one, a two or a . three. The dart thrower stood at the foot of the board where there was a piece of material upon which the money ventured on the throw, was placed. Odds - were laid by the showman —evens on Leckie and Donovan and 3 to 1 on Sarron. A similar system of odds was used ih the “One, two, three” game. The names of the men fined were Miles Huntley, Thomas Cooper, William R. Nicholls, Herbert Anderson, Charles Carter, Reginald Sim, Frank Fitzwilliam, Robert Odell, John Lawrence, George John Wallace, Basil Fleming,. William Hansen, Cornelius McDevitt, Guy McNaughton, Edward Ttinnecliffe, Harry Torpey and Archibald Wilson. With the exception qf Wilson each cithern was mulcted in JOs costs.

On the ground that the game was one of /skill and not change the men at first pleaded not guilty through Mr. A. A. Bennett. Another point would be the liability of patrons of the game, said counsel.

If th; charges were defended, said the .detective, the police would have to ask for a remand till Wednesday in order to prepare the cases. . PLEA? ALTERED TO GUILTY. In view of this statement Mr. .Bennett a,iked for a short adjournment in order that the men might confer upon the position. Most of th mi, he said, had engagements to fulfil at other shows and could not afford to stay in New Plymouth the following week. - The magistrate granted the application. Upon resumption Mr. Bennett said in view of the circumstances the men had accepted his advice to plead guilty and have the matter disposed of. Counsel explained that he had been prepared to advise them all to plead not guilty and to ask them to demonstrate to the court Chat the game was one of skill. The men could not stay in New Plymouth, however, as they bad .to go to other .shpyys in. various parts of the. Dominion where, of course, they would observe the law. The men did not admit it was a game of chance, but were willing to admit the charges to facilitate their disposal. The defence proposed originally had been a legal one as the men did ,not dispute the fact that they had played the games. Detective Meiklejohn proceeded to explain and demonstrate the game in detail and to tell the court the parts taken by the various men. Some of them worked singly, he said, some in pairs and others in threes. One man ran the table while others acted as decoys- and actually took part in the betting. The game depended, on side bets by the members of the public. The magistrate (looking at one of the canvas squares on the wall)-. What is oil that? ' . r a ..Mr. Bennett: L for Leckie, S for Marron and D for Donovan, The detective: No —L S D for pounds, shillings and pence to draw the public. He maintained it was impossible to throw the dart. accurately enough to hit any particular symbol. . , # The, magistrate; A very accurate instrumenli would be required. = , The..detective; Yes, Your Worship—a gUD " ... . , ■ '" 'AN UNSKILFUL' ! He said lie had a sliowmah to show the game was a matter of skill by hitting one, two and three with darts. He had failed to transfix the squares in that order. He understood the game .had been played at shows for some time but it was not generally allowed. One of the men was fined for playing the game at Gisborne in January. Some of the men liad been at the New Plymouth show from the opening day and others started the game later. He himself had seen bets made from sixpence to £1 and he understood £2 had been laid. The men had agreed to appear voluntarily on sumnrons. Some of them were married and one had nine children. Mr. Bennett said there was apparently ’no substantial difference between the various games. In each ease the symbols were so arranged to make the chances of hitting any particular one reasonably consistent. The case at Gisborne that had been , referred; to. was one of those counsel had had in ‘mind when he suggested it was game of skill. One of the. witnesses then called had averaged seven out of 10 of the numbers aimed at. That showed skill was involved. As a matter of fact, it was possible for a skilful thrower to bankrupt the table. This type of game had been played everywhere and no objection taken. All classes of the community, professional and otherwise, took part and as far as could be gathered no complaint had been made about unfairness. At any rate it could be described as fair sport.

Some of those involved in the charges were merely patrons of the games and had nothing whatever to do with the running of them. They paid* for their darts in the same way as the public did. In this connection counsel suggested the players among the public were just as liable as those who controlled the games. He contended the show, authorities themselves went fairly close to a breach of the gaming- law when they sold their cake at it, shilling a slice and gave the buyers a .chance of finding money in it in sums, he believed, up to 10s. It showed that the public wanted this sort of thing. Counsel asked why, if the game was bo obviously illegal, they had 'been permitted to go on till Frida]'. ' i The magistrate' ‘said ■he wouM not bi.

discriminate between the men so far as thp degrees of guilt were concerned-. The fact that the men had pleaded guilty had simplified the matter. It must be recognised, of course, that these games were barred under the provisions of the Gaming Act. Some other way of amusing tho public must bo found. The . maximum penalty was £5O and if further breaches occurred the penalties would be made heavier than they were this time. Without knowing about their past records he proposed to treat them all as first offenders. In reply to the magistrate. Detective Meiklejohn said a number of -the men were known to the police, but he did not propose io bring up their ■ histories. An order was made confiscating the paraphernalia used for the games.