Present: Wood Renton J.

MODDER v. SILVA.

94-P. C. Kurunegala, 11,935.

Unlawful gaming-Playing a game of pure skill for stake-Ordinance No. 17 of 1889, s. 5 (a).

Playing a game for stake, though the game be one of skill alone, is an affence under section 5 of Ordinance No. 17 of 1889.

Chance is not a necessary element of unlawful gaming.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

Balasingham, for the accused, appellant.-The playing of a pure game of skill for a stake is not unlawful. See judgment of Cock-burn C.J. in Bew v. Harston1 and Ramanathan's Reports (1877) 83.

In this case money was not staked. The accused only offered to pay a certain sum if the thrower succeeded in throwing the ring on a certain place. This is playing on credit. It has been held by Lawrie J. that playing even a game of chance is not an offence unless money was actually stated. Playing on credit is not an offence. Puhaitamby v. Karolis,2 Perera v. Siddirappu.3

Akbar, C.C., for the respondent.-The case cited from Rama-nathan'8 Reports (1877) 83 was decided under Ordinance No. 4 of 1841. Under that Ordinance only games of chance were prohibited. Our present Ordinance prohibits all games if played for a stake. Even games of pure skill fall within the definition of " Game." See Lockwood v. Cooper,4 Dyson v. Mason,s Jenks v. Turpin.6

There were 50-cent and 10-cent pieces on the table, and the thrower was entitled to 50 or 10 cents as the ring covered one or the other. That is not playing on credit.

Tambyah, as amicus curiae, referred the Court to Indian authorities, which were submitted on a later day.

February 26, 1912. Wood Renton J.-

The accused-appellant was convicted In the Police Court of Kurunegala of having kept a room, of which he was the occupier, as

Playing billiards or bagatelle or any game, which is also an athletic exercise, is not an offence. See section 18.

1 (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 455.                                                                         4 (1903) 2 K. B. 428.

2 (1893) 2 S. C. R. 62.                                                                             5 (1889) 2 Q. B. D. 353.

3 (1893) 2 S. C. R. 75.                                                                             6 (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 565.

a common gaming place, and of having thereby committed an offence punishable under section 5 (a) of Ordinance No. 17 of 1889. The Police" Magistrate has sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25. It is not disputed that the appellant was the occupier of the house in question, or that, if the game alleged to have been allowed to be played on the premises is one of a class against which the Ordinance is directed, the room so used was a common gaming house. The game was thus described in effect by the appellant himself in his evidence at the trial. The principle of play was to throw rings on a slanting table, to which 153 10-cent pieces and 4 50-cent pieces were affixed. One cent was payable for each throw. If the ring enclosed a coin, the thrower became the winner of the coin enclosed. The learned Police Magistrate held that this was a pure game of skill, and I will decide the present appeal on the footing that that finding is correct, although I find in the case of Ahamad Khan v. Emperor,1 to which I have been kindly referred by Mr. Tambyah as amicus curies, that two Judges of the High Court of Allahabad held that the element of chance in a game consisting of throwing a ring over a pin is so strong that the game cannot be held to be a mere game of skill. The question for decision is whether the learned Police Magistrate's interpretation of the law in the present case is correct. It was held in P. C. Jaffna, 2,838,2 that for the purpose of section 4 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1841, a game is not unlawful where it is one of skill alone. I do not think, however, that that decision can be made to apply to a prosecution under section 5 of Ordinance No. 17 of 1889. The