Last updated 10:55, Saturday, 24 May 2008

“RACE DOG” was in full swing on Netherhall Sports Field, Maryport, one summer afternoon back in 1919.

A small group of men were assembled to watch, and to take part, in the proceedings. But there wasn’t a dog to be seen, even though the game was described in the press as a hound trail. And so it was, a “hound trail with dice.”

It was a gambling game. Mr A, later to become a well known local businessman, had arrived at the field carrying a small folding table and a cloth. In no time at all, he was surrounded by punters and onlookers. Mr A. didn’t know it, but one of these was a plain clothes policeman, PC Nuttall.

I don’t know how where the “hound trailing with dice” came from, because the proceedings certainly had nothing to do with hounds or trailing. According to PC Nuttall, “the game was played with six dice numbered one to six, and the board was numbered from six to 36.”

Punters put their money on their chosen numbers; someone would roll all six dice. The combined total would tot up to anything between six and 36 – to produce the winning number. It was, as far as I can tell, Roulette – minus the wheel.

Seeking to secure cloth and board for evidence, PC Nuttall “made a rush for the table.” It, and all that was on it, was knocked to the ground. He did manage to arrest Mr A and take him to the police station, where he was charged with “playing at a game of chance, with cloth and dice.”

When the case came to court, it should have been pretty straightforward affair for the Maryport magistrates. But it wasn’t.

After deliberation, the magistrates decided to fine him £5 – or a month in prison. Mr A. was having none of it. As he told the chairman of the magistrates, “It is my first offence. I don’t think you can fine me £5, if you look up the law.”

Then followed a haggle as to whether it had actually been his first offence, or just his first offence under the Gaming Acts. When Supt Illingworth raised the matter, Mr A offered him odds of 10/1 that it was his first offence.

He ended up with a fine of £2 – because they finally, and probably wearily, accepted that it had been his first offence.

The early papers are full of reports of the police rounding up open air punters, from youngsters to oldsters - as though they couldn’t have spent more time catching real criminals. That’s when they weren’t spending hours lurking outside pubs trying to catch people drinking after hours.

That same year, three Cleator Moor miners were charged with “gaming with cloth and dice at Asby, at 3pm.” Two policemen saw a group of men playing “Crown & Anchor” by the roadside. Before they could move in, the group, after a few moments arguing, packed away the cloth and started playing “Nap”, a card game.

In court, their defence lawyer claimed that they had only been playing “kitty nap.” A question here for all you card players, what’s the difference between “Nap” and “Kitty Nap?” They were found guilty and fined between £2 and £5 each.

A trio of card players from Frizington were luckier. They were each only fined 10 shillings, but two of them were aged 19 and one, only 17.

The other game favoured by street punters was “pitch and toss.”

Now I’ve always thought that there was only one version of this game, but, it seems, I’m wrong. The version I’ve heard of consists of players standing on a line and tossing their coin/coins against a wall – the owner of the coin landing nearest the wall being the winner. All very straightforward.

But since then I’ve seen mention of versions of the game which involve a “hoyer” and a “chucker,” or just a non-betting “chucker.” So how do these work? Can any old punters help me out on this one? Rules please?