Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X3100400316 |
| Published date | 01 July 1931 |
| Date | 01 July 1931 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
GAMING
ANOTHER recent decision of interest on this subject was given in the Court of
Criminal Appeal in the case of
R.
v. Brennand and Others. In this case the
appellants were convicted of keeping a common gaming house and also under
The
offences were
committed by means of machines known as
the'
Little Stockbroker,' and it
was contended that the use of this machine involved no element either of
skill or chance.
The
Court decided that a machine may be used for the
purpose of ' gaming • and '
betting'
even though, if the directions affixed
to it are obeyed, it is certain that the user will win something.
Mr.
Justice
Avory in the course of his judgment said, '
It
is unfortunate that the expres-
sions " unlawful
machine"
and " gaming
machine"
have been used in this
Court, and were used in the Court below, and the Chairman, by the use of
those expressions in argument,.was himself led into using them.
The
ques-
tion is not whether aparticular machine, when one looks at it, is a betting or
gaming machine; the question is, whether the machine has been used for
purposes of gaming or betting, and whether it has been so used by persons
resorting to the premises for that purpose. We have been told by counsel
that there were on the premises printed directions, of which a specimen has
been produced, and that there were dials on these machines, and that if a
person read these directions and strictly followed them and studied the dial,
the way in which the arrow pointed and so forth, he might make a certainty
of winning some
money;
but
the evidence which was before the jury, and
which was uncontradicted,was that, with few exceptions, the persons who used
this machine did not read the directions or study the dial,
but
dropped
pennies into the machine and took their chance of something coming
out;
and the description given to us seems to suggest that anyone, who wanted to
make a certainty of winning, would have occupied the machine for a great
part of the day to the exclusion of all other people. On that state of facts,
the Chairman, at the conclusion of the evidence, held that the machine, in the
manner in which it had been used, was being used for unlawful gaming and
for purposes forbidden by the second branch of section 1of the Betting Act,
namely, " for the purpose of any money
...
being received
...
as or for the
consideration for any
...
agreement to
payor
give
...
any money
..•
on any
event or contingency of or relating to any
...
game." •
The
learned judge went on to refer to earlier decisions which decided
that the question of whethera house was used for unlawful gaming and whether
aparticular game as played was an unlawful game was a question of law for
the Judge and not of fact for the jury.
The
Court held that the Chairman
was right in deciding as a question of law whether the machine was in the
circumstances being used either for unlawful gaming or for the purposes pro-
hibited by the Betting Act.
They
further said thatif there wasany real dispute
with regard to the facts, it would be proper for the presiding Judge to leave it
47°
To continue reading
Request your trial