DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME EUCHRE COURT OF EARLWOOD

SECE JUDGMENT NO.1934

Citation:  Per-Ulrik Fatcatsson/Blue v Kenny Crenshaw

Question:  What is the penalty for refusing to accept your card has been deemed a table card?

Hearing date/s:  3 July 2004

Judgment date:  5 July 2004

Jurisdiction:  Rules

Judgment of:  Hannah, P.

Decision:  In this instance, $120

Catchwords:  Table card, follow suit, renege.

Legislation cited:  Rules of Earlwood Euchre (1973) as amended, Hoyle's Rules of Games – The Essential Guide to Poker and Other Card Games – Third Revised and Updated Edition 2003

Case/s Cited:  Tack Nicklaus v ESGEC (SECE 15/1981)

Parties:  Fatcatsson/Blue - Plaintiffs, Crenshaw - Defendant

File number(s):  SECE 37/2004

Counsel:  Ford, Abbott & Lout - Plaintiffs, Tackhead & Associates - Defendant

Judgment:

1.  The plaintiffs state in their affidavit that the defendant, Crenshaw, threw off on the first lead and then asked what trumps were.  When so informed, he took back his card from the table and replaced it with a trump, ultimately winning the trick.  The plaintiffs state categorically that the card was played and released on the table prior to when Crenshaw asked what trumps were.  They further submit a claim for financial loss of $240 as they were euchred on the hand and eventually lost the game.

2.  Crenshaw, in his evidence, denies the card left his hand.  Under cross-examination, he acknowledges that if it had, the card would be deemed a table card, and could not be withdrawn (SECE 15/1981).

3.  The defendant was asked why his partner, Keith the Neck, had declined to give evidence on his behalf.  Crenshaw stated his partner was not a reliable witness as he was often under the influence of various mood-altering substances, both legal and illegal, which over the course of a number of years had adversely affected his short and long-term memory.

4.  On this point, I concluded that the defendant was telling the truth as his proboscis, which had been steadily getting larger the longer his evidence went on, stopped growing.

5.  After reviewing the submissions and hearing the evidence there is no doubt both parties are well aware of this court's definition of a table card –"When all three of the following occur: the card is played, it is placed, by whatever means, on the table, and it is released by the player."  The possible exception to this rule is where the player, before the trick has been taken away, advises the table he has reneged.  His opponents may agree to reward this honesty by starting the trick again or, if they are miserable bastards, they can take the 2 points for a renege.

6.  The evidence tended by Crenshaw was, to my mind, no more than a litany of half-truths and therefore I find the card played by him was in fact a table card.  However, I am unable to confidently say that if Crenshaw's card had been accepted as such, the result of the game would have been any different, and therefore I am reluctant to provide a remedy to the full amount of financial loss as claimed by the defendants.  I award them 50% of their claim, $120, to be shared between the plaintiffs and paid by the defendant and to be so noted on each player's TAB accounting card.