77 70
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS &
FIRST "DARTS” GAMING CASE
Backing Chances Against Persons Staking Counters An Offence: Keeper Fined
July 5. Judgment was given by Mr. R. Edwards at the Central Magistracy yesterday in the case in which Wan Kam, 34, un- employed, was charged with keeping the ground floor of No. 55 Stanley Street as a common gaming house, and Lai Yee, 34. who was charged with gambling in the establishment.
First defendant was fined $10, whilst second defendant was cautioned.
Mr. J. B. Prentis, Assistant Crown Solicitor, prosecuted, and Mr. Alfred Y. Hon represented the defendants.
The following is the full text of the judgment:-
July 14, 1939
CHOPPER ATTACK
SEQUEL
Attempted Murder Alleged
July 7. Jealousy over a woman is be- lieved to be the motive for an at- tempted murder which occurred in Spring Garden Lane on May 25, when a man was chopped twice in the head.
As a sequel, a carpenter, Lee Chan, was charged with attempted murder yesterday before Mr. R. A. D. Forrest at the Central Court.
board some 10 feet or so away hav- Yuen Tung, victim of the inci- ing small squares of the same 5 dent, told the Court that he was colours; that if the dart hit say having his meal in the Tsui Lok blue, all persons who has staked Eating House, Spring Garden Lane, on blue would win prizes accord-on the day in question when a ing to the value of their counters, man came from behind and sud. The 1st. defendant is charged which prizes were worth consider- denly attacked him. under Common Law and Sec. 6 of ably more than the amount of the Chan Suet-hing, kept woman, she knew the defendant the Gambling Ordinance, 1891, counter staked, that any person said
four with keeping the front
staking was entitled to throw the several years ago. Three or ground floor room of No. 55 Stanley Street dart himself this appeared from years ago defendant had asked her as a common gaming house as de- the rules pasted on the wall as to live with him but she refused.
well as fined in the latter half of sub-
from the 1st, witness's She later married the complainant. evidence but equally that the After further evidence the hear- section (3) of Sec. 2 (a) of the Ordinance, that is,
common person was not compelled to throwing was adjourned to this after- gaming house for the purpose of it himself, but could agree to be noon.
bound by the result of some one money being received by him or on his behalf as the consideration else's throw; that the 2nd. defen- and took for an undertaking to give there- dant bought counters after certain valuable things on a part in this game on 2 or 3 oc- casions; that the 1st defendant contingency relating to a game known as "darts." The 2nd, de- sold counters to players and ad- fendant is charged with gambling mitted that he was the keeper; that persons were coming and in a common gaming house at the
going from the room and that at same place and time.
14 persons on the premises. any one time there were some 13-
a
The main facts in the case are, I think, undisputed. The only material point on which the wit- nesses for the prosecution were
It was submitted by Mr. Prentis for the prosecution on the au- thority of Peers v. Caldwell, 1916
be bound by the throw of another is indulging in a game of skill. As to the case of a solo player throw- ing a dart simply in respect of his own counters, I express no opinion. having heard no evidence from any one who is competent to judge and has tried the board.
But in my view it is immaterial whether the game is one of skill or chance or how far skill predo- minates over chance in this game.
cross-examined was whether the K.B.D., Vol.I, p371, and Peers and/ The 1st defendant is charged with
counters of only one person or
Brown, C.A.R. Vol.12, p.210, that
more than one person could be this was a common gaming house
affected by the throw of a single dart, but if the defendants relied on establishing certain facts in this connection it is curious that neither of them has given any
evidence.
FACTS PROVED
as defined in the charge,
No evidence was called for the
defence, but Mr. Hon citing Morris v. Godfrey, 106 L.T. 890 and the dissenting judgment of Lush J. in Peers v. Caldwell invited me to find as a fact whether or not this, was a game of skill or a game of chance and if it were the former to discharge the defendants.
keeping a common gaming house. Section 2 (a) gives definitions of
what are common gaming houses within the Ordinance. The first definition comes from the Gaming Houses Act 1854, and under that definition it is material to determine whether a game is one of chance. skill, or mixed chance and skill.
But the present charge is con- cerned not with this definition, but with the third definition which comes from the Betting Act 1853 and provides, as Ridley J. ob- served in Peers and Caldwell, for 2 separate offences; the first keep- ing a house for the purpose of bet- The defence have called no ting, the second keeping a house evidence at all and the prosecu- for the purpose of receiving tion relying doubtless on the cases cited have not thought it neces- sary to call any specially directed to this point. It would no doubt be difficult to argue that the play- er who foregoing his own right to throw the dart himself agrees to
I am satisfied by the evidence given by the witnesses for the pro- secution and find the following facts proved; that on the evening
LITTLE EVIDENCE
of June 13 the following pastime But there is singularly little was going on in the front ground evidence before me to enable me floor room of No. 55 Stanley to give such a finding of fact. Street, namely, that members of the public could enter and were invited to enter by a person shouting "Flying Darts Inside" at the entrance--and buy for money counters of varying amounts and stake these counters on one of 5 colours marked on a tressle table; that a dart was then thrown at a
or
money as the consideration of an undertaking to pay money moneys worth in the event of cer- tain specified contingencies.
The case of Morris v. Godfrey therefore in which the charge was (Continued on page 71)