Bolger v Doherty

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 16 December 1963
• Date: 01 January 1970
• Docket Number: [1963. No. 111 SS.]
• Court: High Court

[1963. No. 111 SS.]

Bolger

and

Doherty

On the 9th November, 1962, the applicant (Seán Bolger) applied to the District Court under s. 28 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, for a licence enabling him to promote periodic lotteries from the 9th November, 1962, to the 8th November, 1963, at the Apollo Cinema, Dundrum, where it was intended to stage some variety shows. The applicant was the vice-president, and nominee, of the Dublin Press Stage Children's Charities Committee. The applicant wished to be able to promote the playing of the game of Bingo either before the commencement of a variety performance or during one of the intervals in the show. He informed District Justice Carr that a patron of the variety performance would buy a ticket at the entrance to the cinema for admission to the variety performance, and that when he was inside the cinema he could buy from the applicant's assistants a further ticket which would enable him to participate in the game of Bingo. Each Bingo ticket had printed on it a random selection of numerals chosen from the range 1 to 100. A player could buy and play two or more Bingo tickets at one session of the game. A steward, who supervised the playing of the game, had a bag containing cards on each of which was printed a number within the range 1 to 100. The game was played by the steward, or one of the players, taking cards from the bag and on each occasion calling out the number on the card. A player who heard the calling of a number that appeared on his Bingo ticket would cancel that number on his ticket. The player who first cancelled all the numbers on his Bingo ticket, being numbers that had been drawn from the steward's bag and announced, won a prize. The game Bingo was essentially the same as the game House which is described in Barrett v. Flynn.IR12 District Justice Carr granted the application in Bolger v. Doherty but, at

the request of the respondent Doherty, the District Justice stated a Case for the opinion of the High Court pursuant to s. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857. The respondent's contention, that the game Bingo was not a lottery, would appear to have involved substituting the word "means" for the word "includes"in s. 2 of the Act of 1956. The Case stated by District Justice Carr was heard and determined by the President of the High Court (Davitt P.) on the 16th December, 1963, when the following judgment was delivered.

Davitt P. :—

This is a Case stated by District Justice Carr, the...