031-NLR-NLR-V-02-ANDERSON-v.-SAIDNUBAI-et-al.pdf
( 78
1805.
October 2.
ANDERSON v. SAIDNTJBAI et al.
P. C., Chilaw, 8,951.
“ The Gaming Ordinance, 1889 ”—Entry under it—Presumption as to aplace being a common gaming place, <fcc.—Knuckle bone.
An. entry into a gaming place under “ The Gaming Ordinance■ 1889,” is an entry made undor section 7 of the Ordinance, that, is to ,say, under the authority of a warrant issued by a Police Magistrate.in terms of that section ; and it is only in case of such entry that thepresumptions mentioned in sections 9 and 10 as to the place enteredbeing a common gaming place, and as to the guilt of the personsfound therein or running away therefrom, &c., arise.
A knuckle bone is not enumerated as an instrument, of gamingin section 3 of the Ordinance ; and it cannot be held as such whenthere is no evidence to justify the finding.
f~j lHE facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment'.
Senathirajah, for appellant.Dumbleion, G. C., for respondent.
2nd October, 1895. Bonser, C.J.—
In this case the appellants were convicted under “ The GamingOrdinance, 1889,” of unlawful gaming, by Mr. -Carbery, the Acting,Police Magistrate of Chilaw. The evidence on which theconviction is founded is shortly this. A Local Board Inspectorhaving received some information proceeded to a place, which hedescribed as an open space surrounded by jungle.. There he seesa number of men. He does not see any gambling. Having taken
<- )others with him who surrounded the place, he called out “ Catol?them,’’ whereupon the men all ran away. Three were caught nearthe spot, and the rest the Local Board Inspector professes toidentify, although the other witnesses could not. On the spot wasfound a knuckle bone and ten cents. These are the facts on whichthe conviction is based. The Magistrate dealt with these facts inthis way. He said that this was a place which was entered underthe Ordinance, and being so entered there were found thereinstruments of gaming, to wit, the knuckle bone aforesaid; that,therefore, by virtue of section 10 of the Ordinance the presumption'arose that this place was a common gaming place. Then heraised another* presumption undo* section 9.- Having found thatthis place was a common gaming place, he applied section 9, whichprovides that a person found in a common gaming place or foundescaping therefrom on the occasion of its being entered under thisOrdinance shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to beguilty of unlawful gaming. The appellants therefore were guiltyof unlawful gaming. If the facts established the presumptions, thechain of reasoning is complete, but in my opinion they do not. Inthe first place, this place was not entered under the Ordinance.The' entry under the Ordinance is an entry made under section 7,which- provides that “ a Police Magistrate on being satisfied upon.“ written information on oath, and. after any further inquiry which“ he may think necessary, that there is good reason to believe that“ any place is kept, or used, as a* common gaming place, may by-“ warrant authorize any person therein named, or any police officer,“ with such assistance and by such means as may be necessary, by’“ night or by day, to enter or go to such place and to search the“ same and all persons therein found.” But in the present case nowarrant was issued. The Local Board Inspector went on bis ownmotion to this place. I hold therefore that this place waS notentered under the Ordinance. That takes, away the foundationstone from the edifice. But there is another difficulty in sustainingthis conviction. The Magistrate held that the knuckle bone, wasan instrument for gaming. It is not enumerated as such in section 3of the Ordinance ; and there is no evidence to justify the finding thata knuckle bone is an instrument for gaming. For these reasons,-1am of opinion that the conviction is wrong, and must be quashed.
I think that in this case the appellants are entitled to their costs.
4 1898.Octoieri.
Bohsbb, C.J.