In the Irish Courts
| Published date | 01 January 1955 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835501900106 |
| Date | 01 January 1955 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
SUPREME
COURT
IN
EIRE
GAMING FOR MONEY OR
MONEY'S
WORTH
A.
G. (Hynes) v. Casino Amusement Theatres Ltd.
INRoberts v. Harrison (1909, 25
T.L.R.
700), the defendant
was convicted of an offence against s. 4 of
the
Gaming
Houses Act, 1854,
upon
proof of
the
fact
that
he had kept a
slot machine in which,
upon
the
insertion of a halfpenny, a
ball had been received and when thrown
up
to
the
top of
the
machine could be 'lost' to the player, or could be returned to
the
player or could fall so as to
return
his halfpenny to the
player.
Upon
its being argued that the conviction was wrong
because the player could get nothing except his chance of
receiving his halfpenny back, Darling J. asked:
"Would
not the
right to go on playing be a stake, money's
worth?";
and Jelf J.
added:
"Why
is
not
a few minutes' more amusement money's
worth?". Although
Lord
Alverstone C.J. thought
that
"the
question is near the line" he joined
the
other members of the
Court
in agreeing
that
"by
what they do they may get money's
worth"
(per Jelf J.).
In
A.
G. (Hynes) v. Casino Amusement
Theatres
Ltd.
(see Vol. 18 p. 178 of this
JOURNAL),
the
facts
were
the
same except
that
the
machine was worked with discs
for each of which one penny had to be paid.
There
was, indeed,
further evidence,
that
the
machine could be worked with
pennies
and
that
pennies had in fact been inserted,
but
no
evidence was given as to how they got into the machine or
that
any pennies had ever been refunded to any of the players.
The
High
Court
in Eire followed Roberts v. Harrison and held
that
aplayer who won
the
return
of his disc won the right to further
entertainment which was money's worth,
the
operation of
the
machine
and
the entertainment gained being avaluable
commodity, which could (had the player wished) have been
sold to others wishing to play. More recently, the Supreme
Court
has reversed this decision of
the
High
Court
and
has
64
To continue reading
Request your trial