GAME OF CHANCE?

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19137, 21 October 1927, Page 12

GAME OF CHANCE?

"WORDSKIL" PUZZLES. | EVENING NEWSPAPER CHARGED In the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, Charles John Brown, of Christ-church, was charged with having on two occasions commenced a scheme by which prizes of money were competed for by a game of chance. ■Thomas Edward Robson, publisher, in the employ of the Lyttelton Times Company, was charged with having, on August 6th last, published an advertisement whereby it was made to appear that certain premises were used for the purpose of a lottery or a scheme by which prizes of money were disposed of by chance. The prosecutions concerned ''Wordskil Puzzles." which have appeared in certain Christchurch papers. The one produced in Court was No. 13 and offered a prize of £oQ for the correct solution. The solutions wers to be forwarded to Box 694, G.P.O!', Christchurch. Both defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for Brown nnd Mr J. H. Upham for the Lyttelton Times Company. Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., was on the Bench. "I will reserve judgment," said the Magistrate, after he had heard argument. "I have practically made up my >inind, but the matter is worth consideration. I hope that one side or the other will take the case to the Appeal Court." Fictitious Winner? Detective-Sergeant J. B. Young, who prosecuted, said that on September 26th last'he interviewed Brown about "Wordskil" puzzles, which had appeared in various papers. Brown said he had gone into partnership with a man named Gradwell. When an advertisement was inserted £6O was handed to the Editor, together with the correct solution. He had questioned Brown about a man named Forsyth, of Hamilton, who was cited as the winner of one competition. It was stated further that Forsyth had said in a letter that he had moved to Dunedin. It was suggested that the winner was a fictitious person. At this ooint, Mr Thomas objected to the evidence given. Brown's partner, Gradwell, was certainly out on probation, but this had nothing to do with the legal principle involved. Witness stated further that Brown admitted there were alternative solutions. Skill and Chance. Mr Thomas said that the police seemed to think that if there was any chance at all the competition was illegal. He joined issue with them in this. If there was skill as well as chance then it was not illegal. It was correct that one or two of the clues were open to different solutions, but some were far-fetched. According to Mr Upham, the lottery, if any, had been carried out at 699 Colombo street. The information against Robson was that he advertised premises where people might resort to bet. The term "premises" had a very wide meaning. The advertisements were absolutely legitimate on the face of it, and he did not .think the police would .have objected/to their publication had they , been approached. If the police interpretation were correct newspapers would not take the chance in future of publishing such advertisements. No offence had been committed and the information should be dismissed. The Magistrate said the \ offence against the paper was only a technical one. He. thought that 90 per cent, of our leading lawyers, had they been editors, would have published the advertisements. '>.■.'■ Decision was reserved.