In Danford v. Taylor,[[416]] the game of ten-pins, the losers standing beer all round, was held to be within the Act.
In Bew v. Harston,[[417]] a licensed person allowed to be played on his premises a game called “puff and dart,” the object of which is to hit a mark on a target with a small dart blown through a tube. The players each contributed 2d. as entrance money, the total sum so contributed being applied to the purchase of a rabbit as a prize for the winners. Held that he was rightly convicted of gaming on licensed premises. Cockburn, C.J., doubted whether the term “gaming” did not apply to games of chance alone.
Except for the doubts thus expressed in the last case, the authorities seemed to be all one way, that playing for money, even at a game exclusively of skill, is “gaming”: this view has since been adopted in Dyson v. Mason.[[418]]
Card playing.
In Patten v. Rymer[[419]] an innkeeper, whose license forbade him to suffer gaming on his premises, was held liable under 9 George IV., c. 61, section 21, for playing cards for money with his friends.
Although 37 & 38 Vict., c. 49, permits licensed persons to serve liquors to private friends after hours, there is nothing in that act which justifies him in allowing the friends in his house to play cards for money.[[420]] Section 25 of the Act of 1872, which imposes a penalty on persons found in licensed premises during prohibited hours for the purpose of being served with liquor, does not extend to cases where they are only playing cards or other games.[[421]]
Unlawful games.
As to what are unlawful games, see ante p. 152.
Money lent by publican for gaming cannot be recovered.
In Foot v. Baker[[422]] it was held that money lent by a publican for the purpose of gaming in his premises contrary to his license cannot be recovered.