GAMING. 441 



towards the purchase of a prize to be given to the winner, 

 it was held that he was rightly convicted («). 



A licensed person who plays cards for money with his 

 personal friends on the licensed premises, or, without taking 

 any part in the game, allows them to do so, is liable to 

 conviction for suifering gaming to be carried on (i/), even 

 though he be bond fide entertaining them at his own expense 

 during closing hours (s). But there is no provision in the 

 Act for the conviction of a guest for gaming on licensed 

 premises, whether during the hours of closing or not ; 

 and the fact that a licensed person who suffers friends, 

 whom he is lawfully entertaining during closing hours, 

 to play cai'ds or any other game for money, is guilty of an 

 offence against s. 17, does not render the latter liable to 

 conviction under s. 25, as they are not on the premises in 

 contravention of the Act (a). 



Playing a lawful game is not gaming unless money is 

 staked upon it. In order, therefore, to bring a case within 

 section 17, the game in question must either have been 

 played for money or be unlawful in itself. A conviction 

 upon an information which charged that a person licensed 

 under the repealed statute 9 Geo. 4, c. bl, did " knowingly 

 sufier an unlawful game, to wit, the game of dominoes, to 

 be played" in his house, was held bad on the ground that 

 the game of dominoes is not in itself unlawful {b). But a 

 conviction upon an information charging a licensed person 

 with suffering the game of dominoes to be played for money 

 on his premises would be good (o). 



In order to support a conviction under section 17, it is 

 necessary to give some evidence of actual or constructive 

 knowledge on the part of the person charged that gaming 

 was carried on on his premises. But the offence may be 

 committed by connivance or negligence either on the part 

 of the licensed person or the person in charge of the 

 premises. 



Thus where a game was played for money when the 

 licensed person was ill in bed, and there was no evidence 

 that his wife had any knowledge of the gaming, which was 

 a mere casual frolic, it was held that he could not be con- 



(x) Sew V. Sarston, 3 Q. B. D. N. S. 294. 



454 ; 47 L. J.,M. C. 121 ; 39 L. T., {a) Cooper v. Osborne, 35 L. T., 



JS". S. 233 ; 26 W. E. 915. N. S. 347. 



(j/) Fatten t. Rhijmer, 3 E. & E. (4) Reg. v. Ashton, 1 E. & B. 



1 ; 29 L. J., M. C. 189. 286 ; 29 L. T., M. C. 1. 



(z) Sare t. Osborne, 34 L. T., (c) Ibid. 



