The Sun.
London, England, 1844-11-25 00:00:00

restored, and there are now in the parish thirty-three
labourers who purchased cows for themselves as soon as
the allotments were granted.

THE LAW OF GAMING.
IMPORTANT LEGAL OPINION.
BIRMINGHA.M, FRIDAY EVENING.—For many years
past the magistrates of this borough have been in the
habit of convicting licensed victuallers for allowing card-
playing in their houses, the act of playing having been
hitherto held as an unlawful act. A few days ago several
respectable licensed victuallers were summoned before
the magistrates, charged on the evidence of the police,
with having allowed card-playing in their houses. Mr.
Harding, solicitor, rigidly cross-examined the witnesses,
when they admitted that they did not hear or see any-
thing which warranted them in swearing that the parties
were playing for money or any other consideration.
Mr. Harding then submitted that the mere playing at
cards in a public-house did not constitute an offence, and
that unless it could be proved that the parties played for
money or some other consideration, no conviction could
take place. In this view of the case he was followed by
Mr. Edmonds, aho contended also that it was requisite
to specify the precise nature of the game in the informa-
tion. Messrs. Cm and Barlow, magistrates' clerks, ad-
mitted that the arguments required consideration, cad
agreed to prepare the points for the consideration of
counsel. They accordingly submitted the case to Mr.
Archbold, to which is now appended that gentleman's
reply:—
" In the Licensed Victuallers' Act, the 9th Geo. IV.,
cap. 6, the forms of the licence provide that the person
licensed shall not knowingly suffer any unlawful games,
or any gaming whatever, in his house. Under this Act
an information is laid before Justices against AB, li-
censed victualler, for knowingly suffering gaming with
cards in his house, and the evidence proves that, with the
knowledge of A B, persons were playing with cards in
his house at the game of 'All-Fours,' but it is not proved
that they were playing for any stake. Under these cir-
cumstances, it is objected that no conviction can be made,
for the following reasons
:
"First, that no stake is proved to be played for ; and,
secondly, that the game is not named in the information.
The opinion of Mr. Archbold is requested, Ist, whether
it is necessary to prove that a stake was played for ?
2dly, whether it is necessary to specify in the infroma-
tion the particular game at cards which was played ;
and whether a statement of the name of the game is suf.-
ficient, without foaling the mode of playing it ?
" A similar information is laid in the same words
against C D, and other licensed victuallers, but in that
case, although the evidence shows that parties were play •
ing at cards with the landlord's knowledge, it does not
appear what game was played. In addition, therefore,
to the objection which exists in the other case, it cannot
be proved in this what specific game was played.
" Mr. Archbeld is requested therefore to advise
whether a conviction can properly take place against
CD. The principal question upon which Mr. Arch-
bold's opinion is asked, is whether a licensed victualler
can be convicted of en offence against the tenor of his
license for allowing persons to play at cards in his house
for recreation only, and his attention is directed to the
statute 33d Henry VIII., cap. 9, the eleventh section of
which will not apply, unless some gain is to accrue to the
landlord; but by the 16th section, playing at cards by
any manner of artificer or craftsman of any handicraft
or occupation, husbandman, apprentice, labourer, servant
to husbandry, journeyman, and other persons therein
named, is prohibited, except at Christmas, and then only
in their master's house and presence.
" Are not games at cards, therefore, by such persons
at other times than Christmas, and then out of their
masters' houses and presence, unlawful games, and may
not a licensed victualler, in such case, be convicted of
knowingly suffering unlawful games in his house, with-
out any proof that a stake was played for ? If Mr. Arch-
bold should be of opinion that a licensed victualler is so
liable to he convicted, he is further requested to advise
as to the form of the information, so far as regards the
statement of the offence, and state what facts aro neces
sary to justify a conviction."

THE OPINION.

" The present informations, I think, cannot be sup-
ported, without proving that the parties were playing for
money, and that the landlords knew of it. The licence
prohibits the knowingly suffering any unlawful game, or
any gaming whatever. A game may be unlawful,
although the parties do not play for money, or money's
worth. But the offence here charged is knowingly suf-
fering gaming with cards; and to prove a playing for
money or money's worth. An information for the other
offence stated in the licence, namely, knowingly suffering
any unlawful game, may be set out in the offence thus:—
[Here follows the form of information, which is merely
useful to magistrates' clerks.]
" As on stating the species of game played, it is in all
cases desirable to state it, in order to preclude any ob-
jection of uncertainty; but I do not think it absolutely
necessary that it should be stated, because playing at
any game of cards for money is gaming, and playing at
any game of cards by artificers, &c., out of Christmas or
in Christmas, except in his master's presence, is an un-
lawful game. " J. T. ARCHBOLD.
" 4, King's Bench-walk, Temple."