TOBACCONISTS & RACE LOTTERIES.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1922, 3 December 1913, Page 9

TOBACCONISTS & RACE LOTTERIES.

DUNEBIN CASE. DECISION OF MAGISTRATE, (3y Telreraril!.—Press Association.) Dunadin, December 2. At the Police Court this morning MrWiddowson, S.M., gave reserved judgment in the case of Joseph Isaacs, who was charged (1) that on. October 10 ho allowed his tobacconist's premises in High Street to be used as a common gaming house.; (2) that on. October 10 ho assisted in conducting a lottery; (3) that on October 10 he sold to Albert Raymond Forward a ss. ticket in Tattersall's special "consolation" on the Melbourne Cup; (4) that on October 10 he received from Forward Gs. for a ticket in a lottery, After reviewing the evidence Hifil Worship said that lie was of opinion, that Clauses A and C of Section 41 referred only to lotteries, etc., promoted in Now Zealand. Clause {!!), however, specially enacted that that particular clause, should apply to a lottery whether promoted, in New Zealand or elsewhere. Information under Clause (C), i.e., those for assisting in conducting a lottery, and for receiving money far a ticket must fail on the ground that tho evidence was not sufficient to support tho conviction. With regard to tho information for disposing of a ticket it had not been proved that defendant was an agent for a Tattersall's ticket costing us., and a constable ivl.o gave evidence stated that an extra Is, paid by him was, he understood, for defendant's expenses. It was explained by defendant's coniis-el that 4d. went for stamp duty on the ticket and postages, and Bd. for defendant's commission. That was the case, but tlicro was no evidenco upon the point. . However, from the evidenco given it appeared that defendant was a purchaser's agent rather than otherwise. However, it could not be held that what was done in this case amounted to a rule on the disposal of fe the ticket by tho defendant. " With regard to tho loiirth charge that he was using his shop as a gaming house, to support a conviction under Section 4, it had been he'd that this must be something more than, merely one act of the user. All the informations would therefore be dismissed.