JUDGES DISCUSS WHIST

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 72, Issue 197, 20 August 1929, Page 5

JUDGES DISCUSS WHIST

THE ELEMENT OF CHANCE BADINAGE IN COURT HAZARDS OE THE GAME An amazing discussion on progressive whist took place in the Court of Criminal Appeal during the hearing of i an appeal by a Liverpool whist ciub.' The Court was composed of the Lord’ Chief Justice, Mr Justice Avory, and! Mr Justice Swift. Appellants were the O.K. Social Whist Club Ltd., which had beeu fined 20s at the Liverpool City Sessions on a charge of keeping a gaming house.' Mr Glynn Blackledge, arguing the' appeal, suggested that there was an element of skill introduced into the whist drives organised by the club, because instead of the winning pairs moving up, they remained at the same tables. Mr Justice Avory: I don’t understand that. In that way a player might have bad partners throughout the evening, and nothing upsets a good player so much as having a bad partner. Mr Blackledge: And nothing pleases a good player so much as geting rid ( of a bad partner. Mr Justice Avory: It seems that you are showing what a gamble it is. (Laughter.) Counsel stated that within fifteen months the club had a membership exceeding 8000. In the second year the number dropped to 2500, possibly because of the threat of police proceedings. In addition to dancing and freshnient, nightly progressive whist drives were conducted and prizes offered. During Mr Blackledge’s argument, Mr Justice Swift observed: You keep speaking of whist as a game of skill. Counsel: As it was played here. Mr Justice Swift: Has it not to be a game of mere skill? How can you eliminate chance from a game of cards? I suppose you do not mean that the cards were dealt with skill? (Laughter.) Mr Blackledge: I can assure your lordship that there is no skill in that way. Lord Hewart: At any rate, in that respect every effort was made that mere chance should prevail. Mr Justice Swift: Shuffling and dealing are part of the ganfe, are they not? Mr Blackledge: That is not usually regarded as part of the game. Mr Justice Swift: You would soon object if somebody else monopolised the dealing. (Laughter.) Mr Blackledge: Not unless I was unduly suspicious. Lord Hewart, giving the judgment, said it was contended that the Recorder was wrong in holding that progressive whist, as played at the appellant club, where the partners as well as the cards were shuffled, was an illegal game. The winning pairs in the drive remained together as long as they won. It was apparent that the Recorder held that the game of progressive whist, as played in the club, involving as it did at every turn the element of chance, and multiplying and confusing the elements of chance by particular rules as to the progression of the partners throughout the evening, was not a game of mere skill, but was an unlawful gamble. In those circumstances the jury found the appellants guilty on the indictment. There was no error in law at the trial, and the appeal was dismissed.