POLICE COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8936, 19 November 1890, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

Tuesday, November 18— Before C. C. Ketile Esq,, R.M. THE GAME OALLED " POKER" LEGAL. His Worship gave judgment in this case, the facts having previously been heard at Hawera. It appears that MiGibson was charged with having, on 19th October, committed a breach of tho Licensing Act by permitting an unlawful game to bo carried on in the Royal Hotel, Hawera, of which he is lessee. His Worship gave the following judgment : — The defendant is charged with having committed a breach of subsection 1, of section 149, of " The Licensing Act, 1881." That section pnvides that any innkeeper who " suffers any unlawful game to be carried on in his premises" shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding, for the first oilence, £10, and not exceeding for the second, and any subsequent oft'enco £20. The evidence establishes that on Sunday evening, 9th October last, a number of persons met at defendant's hotel— The Royal Hotsl— Hawera, and, to the knowledge and with the consent of the defendant, were playing a game of cards know a by the nams of "poker" — a game of chmco — for money, viz., one shilling in, and live shillings rises. To bring the defendant within the section of the Act before referred to, it is necessary that the game should be an unlawful one. There is no interpretation given in the Act of the term unlawful f/anie, but it has been decided by tho Supreme Court of New Zealand, th it tbn Imperial statutes against gambling arc in force in Now Zealand. Sue RuJdiek vWeahcccl, 7 N.Z. L. Reports S. C. p. 491. It has also been decided by the Supremj Court in the c.iKe of ff/as on v. Whitly 2 N.Z. L. Reports S.C. 118 that the card game of Euchre, even whan playo I for money, is not an unVtwfu 1 gain", within the meaning of section 149 of " The Licensing Act, 1881.'' I have examined the Imperial statutes against gambling, and I fail to find that the game of " Poker" or any similar game has boon declared to ba an un'awfal game. The "Gaming and Lotteries' Act, 1881, ' section 8, prohibits playing by way of gaining in any public place with any card or other article used as an instrument or means of such gaining, at any game or pretended game of chance. Public i lace is by the interpretation clause of that Act declared to include road, street, "footway, court, alley, open place, and thoroughfare of every sort, and also all places wherever the public may a semble, and whether money be paid by tho public for admission to such places or not. Assuming therefore that the room in which this game of " Poker" was being played is a public place within the meaning of " The Gaining and Lotteries Act, 1881," it may be that the defendant in suffering the game to be played there brought himself within sub-section 1, of section 149, of '• The Licensing Act." The game of " Poker" becomes an unlawful game if played in a public place, but I doubt whether the parlor of an hotel is a public place within the meaning of the " Gaming and Lotteries Act." In any event, I consider that I am bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kuddick v. Weathered and Glasson v. Whitty before referred to, and, following those cases, I must hoi 1 that the informant has failed to establish that the game of "Poker," which was played on the defendant's licensed promises, as before mentioned, has been nude an unlawful g'ime by Statute. It may be tliat the p rsons who were playing the game are liable to be prosecuted under section 8 o£ " The Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881," but I am not called upon to dociilo that question. The information was therefore dismissed.