Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835501900401 |
| Published date | 01 October 1955 |
| Date | 01 October 1955 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal Law
VOL.
XIX. No. 4 OCTOBER-DECEMBER,
1955
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
A LEGAL
POINT
UNDER AN ANCIENT STATUTE
ONE of
the
oldest statutes
under
which Magistrates' Courts
act to-day is
"An
Acte for
the
Mayntenance of Artyllarie
and
debarringe of unlauful Games" (33 Henry 8, C.9) which
was passed over
400
years ago at
the
instigation of
the
bowyers,
fletchers, stringers and arrowhead makers who were concerned
at
the
decline of archery, despite previous statutes aimed at its
encouragement, because
"many
subtill and inventatyve and
craftye persons
...
have dayly found and dayly finde many
and sondrie new
and
craftye games and players ...kepinge
houses, playes and allyes for
the
mayntenance thereof".
Sections 8and 9 of this Act are still in force.
It
is improb-
able
that
the earlier
part
of
the
former section is ever used now,
because it provides only a penalty of 40s.
per
day on every
keeper of a gaming house instead of the £100 or six months'
imprisonment authorised by
the
Gaming Act 1945,
but
courts have sometimes used the power conferred by
the
latter
part
of
the
same section to order persons "usinge and
hauntinge" such houses
"and
there playenge" to forfeit 6s. 8d.
It
is much more usual, however, for courts to act
under
section 9 because
that
still provides
the
only effective way of
dealing with
the
customers of common gaming houses.
It
empowers justices of
the
peace, mayors, sheriffs and other
officers to enter such houses and arrest not only
the
keepers
but
the
persons there "hauntinge, resortinge and playinge"
and to keep
them
in custody until they have found sureties
not
to use or keep gaming houses or
"no
more to play,
haunt
or excise from thenceforth in at or to anye-of
the
said places
or at any of
the
said games".
281
282
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
The
question was recently raised at Thames Magistrates'
Court as to whether or
not
this power to order adefendant to
enter into a recognizance not to frequent gaming houses should
be exercised in respect of everybody found in a common gam-
ing house or whether it should be confined to those who were
proved to have been taking
part
in an unlawful game.
The
common gaming house concerned was the New
Commercial Club in Umberston Street, E. On
8th
July, 1955,
it was entered by
the
Police by virtue of an order in writing
from the Commissioner, after observation had been kept
inside.
Two
men were arrested and charged with keeping a
common gaming house and about 40 men were arrested as
"persons hauntinge, resortinge and playinge there".
The
assistants in management pleaded guilty and
the
majority of
the
other defendants admitted
that
they were in the premises
to take part in unlawful games and were ordered to enter into
arecognizance
under
33 Henry 8, C.9. A number, however,
refused to enter into a recognizance on the ground that they
were not present to game.
When
the Court invited the Police
to give evidence against these men it was submitted
that
the
only evidence it was necessary to give was
that
the defendants
were found in the common gaming house.
The
magistrate,
Mr.
Leo Gradwell, said
that
although it was proved
that
the
defendants were
"hauntinge"
or "resortinge" he thought that
if they could show
that
they were not there to take part in
gaming they would escape an order to enter into arecognizance.
The
prosecution
then
gave evidence that when
the
Club was
raided the defendants were present.
The
premises consisted of
a large basement room with arefreshment bar, two full sized
billiard tables, and at
the
other "live pools" were organised for
a stake of 5s. or
lOS.,
the
winner getting all except a house
charge of 4s.
Bridge and solo had been played for fairly high stakes
during
the
observation. On
the
night of
the
raid
the
Police
said they saw
pinode
played by two players for
lOS.
stakes. As
the
Court of Criminal Appeal said in
R.
v. Tompson
(1943
K.B.650;2
All
E.R. 130),
the
Gaming Act 1845 did not
specifically repeal
that
part of
the
statute of 33 Henry 8 which
dealt with
"carding"
and
therefore all card games are illegal
unless
"the
element of chance is so slight as to render
the
game one which can properly be said to be a game of mere
skill."
The
effect of this is
that
any card game which is not a
To continue reading
Request your trial