GAMING CHARGES.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19143, 28 October 1927, Page 3

GAMING CHARGES.

RAFFLES FOR CHARITY. A NEWSPAPER SCHEME. For many years raffles have been conducted in the City, the majority of them being in aid of some charitable object. However, these .raffles are a breach of the Gaming Act, and the police have taken action against' the organisers of them. Yesterday several cases were heard in the Lower Court, and the Magistrate, Mr E. D. Mosley, warned the public that the schemes Mere contrary to the Act, and in the future a more serious view would be taken of them.

Joseph Bierman (Mr C. S. Thomas) 'pleaded guilty to a charge that he commenced a scheme by which prizes were drawn for by mode of chance. Chief-Detective Lewis stated that defendant, who was a City tailor, had inaugurated a raffle to raise funds for the Ivy of Linwood Lodge. The funds were to be used for giving children a Christmas treat. ; Mr Thomas stated that the proceeds from the raffle were to give children a Christmas party. This kind of lottery had been run for years in Christchurch, and were used for obtaining money for charitable objects. The Magistrate stated that the lotteries were illegal under the Gaming Act, and he hoped that the public would be made aware of thef act. Because the lotteries were held in aid of charities was no excuse. He drew attention to the art unions that had been run with the permission of the Minister for Internal Affairs, but it had become necessary to prohibit them. These cases were the first ] that had had been brought before the Court, and he considered that it would be sufficient if defendant was convicted arid ordered to pay costs. . Charles Fletcher Dobbs was similarly charged. , , It was stated in evidence that defendant had organised a hamper scheme, the proceeds from which were to give the children of the feomerfield School a treat. ■■■,•,. Dobbs was convicted and ordered to Pa Eric Francis Willcox (Mr Cowlishaw) was similarly charged. Chief-Detective Lewis stated that defendant was the secretary of the R.S.A., which had organised a Christmas hamper. He had taken the responsibility.'' ' . Willcox was convicted and ordered to pav costs. , „ , On a similar charge, Arthur Robert Williamson, a war pensioner, who had started a raffle in order that he might supplement his income, was convicted and discharged. Arthur David Dunkley, publisher of the "Sun," and Henry Alexander Gilbert, a reporter on the "Sun," were similarly charged. Dunkley was further charged with publishing an advertisement whereby it appeared as though certain premises were being used for the of a lottery. Michael Bruce Cook (Mr J. H. Upliiim), manager of the Combined Buyers, was charged with commencing a scheme by which prizes were gained b\ mode of chance. 'Evidence was to the effect that an advertisement, showing the number plate of some City motor-vehicle had appeared in the "Sun." The owner of tTiat vehicle, by taking a copy of the advertisement to a certain garage could obtain an amount of oil for nothing. It was contended that this was a breach of the Gaming Act. After hearing the evidence and legal argument, the Magistrate dismissed \-he informations.

A Newspaper Scbeme. Sidney Roger Evison, manager of the "Sun" newspaper, was charged with four breaches of the Gaming Act. The charges were:—That he agreed to dispose of personal property, to wit £IOOO, by means of a device whereby such stums should be disposed of to a person or persons by lottery; that ho caused to bo published a handbill wherebv it was made to appear that premises, to wit 87 Worcester street, were used for the purpose of taking part in a lottery; that he used the premises _at 87 Worcester street to be used tor the, purpose of money being received as the. consideration for undertaking to pay thereafter money on events relating to horse-racing; that he commenced •a, scheme by which prizes of money were competed for by a modo of chance. Mr A. T. Donnelly prosecuted and Mr M. J. Gresson appeared for tho defendant. , . Mr Donnelly stated that the whole question as to the legality the scheme,- as set out in the "Sun, depended upon the conditions. Tho competition was for a prize of £IOOO, the entry fee being a three months subscrijption to the "Sun." The prize was awarded to the first person who sent m the correct prediction of the first three horses in the New Zealand Cup and the Trotting Cup. If no one sent in a correct prediction, five consolation prizes, each of £IOO, were awarded. He submitted that the legality of the scheme depended upon whether it was-a matter of chance or skill. In the first rato there were 49 horses entered, and in the second 19. He had had the odds worked out, and they are. calculated to be 431,000,000 chances to 1. 'Under those circumstances there must be a fair amouni of chance about it. Another factor was that a person was not to know what horses would start, and there the element of chance came into it- again. Even if a person overcame those difficulties, he might have to give way to someone else whose prediction was received prior to his own. "It is only a test case," he added, "and I do not ask for convictions on the four informations. But it is perfectly plain that the scheme does not come within the meaning of the Act." Mr Gresson intimated that the matter would very likely go to the Apnea l Court. For the defence he stated that similar schemes were considered to bo legal in England and other countries. Before it had been commenced, legal advice had been sought on the matter, and the information had been given that the scheme was . within the law. The legality or otherwise of the scheme was whether it was competed for by mode of chance. To select three horses in anv race was a matter of skill It was admitted that chance entered into it, but the element .of skill was also there. The man who followed racing had a better chance "in the competition than th 9 man who did not, which showed that skill was required. The scheme was not confined to the prize for £looo—there were the consolation prizes. He submitted that a person could not buy a chance—he had to huy a newspaper. The Magistrate stated' that the plan was an exceedingly ingenious one. and one that must incite admiration. The question for the Court to decide was whether it was a matter of skill or of; chance. The odds satisfied him that it was entirely a matter of chance.' The element of skill was so slight that, it could hardly be regarded as a reality Defendant would be convicted. Mr Donnelly: If the matter is going to the Appeal Court, I will ask for a conviction on all charges. . Defendant was convicted and fined £lO on the second charge. The first chf.rge was dismissed and he was convicted and discharged on the otuers ; 7n -Security for appeal was fixed at £2O-