Murray-Aynsley CJ:

In this case the appellant was convicted of assisting in the management of a common gaming house.The Magistrate in the course of a very careful judgment found that the premises in which gambling took place were occupied by a Chinese Club known as the Cathay Club.He found that it had an essentially private character.Whatever the nature of the institution, there was ample evidence that the appellant assisted in the management.In the circumstances of the case the prosecution were unable to rely on any of the presumptions which arise in certain circumstances under Cap. 30.

In view of these considerations the question that arose was whether the premises were kept for habitual gaming, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Ordinance.It is desirable to bear in mind the distinction between the words "kept or used for gaming" and the words "kept for habitual gaming". The evidence showed that on several days between the first and fifteenth days of the Chinese New Year gaming took place.It is possible and even likely that at that auspicious season the principal interest of the members was gaming.It will be remembered that the otherwise Puritanical Statutes issued by Queen Elizabeth for the University of Cambridge permitted card-playing during the similar period between Christmas and the Twelfth-Night.The Magistrate took the view that a club might become a common gaming house seasonally and temporarily. I think that this is looking at the thing too narrowly.By that process of reasoning the most innocent and respectable of clubs would become a common gaming house during a bridge tournament.To find that a place is kept for habitual gaming I think that one should consider its activities for a considerable period.If during that period substantial activities other than gaming are carried on I do not consider that the place can be considered to be kept for habitual gaming.

I do not think that a few days at a special season can be considered a fair sample.

I consider, therefore, that the case was not proved and I allow the appeal.

Appeal Allowed.

Foot Note

The case ofRex V. Singapore British Malay Football Club [1933] 1 MLRH 621, [1934] 1 MLJ 3 was cited in the Court below.Edn. MLJ.