THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1289, 12 November 1886, Page 3

THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT.

The police have at last come down upon the promoters of a consultation, the existence of which was by no means a secret at Christchurch. Jubal Fleming, it was believed, obtained a number of subscribers to bis “ Robin Hood, No. 8 Sydney, programme on the Melbourne and New Zealand Cups ; and it is certain he obtained one subscriber too many. On October 2D last a man called at his shop ami paid LI for two tickets, giving his name as Wdliam Willis, Coalgate. Fleming told him he could not hand him the tickets, as it was against tho law, hut he would post them. The purchaser probably knew as much ahniit tho law as Mr Fleming, as he was a policeman in plain clothes ; but being stationed at an out of the way place like Coalgate, was not known to him. On the following morning the constable called at the Coalgate Post Office and received a letter directed to Mr Willis, the nom de, plume under which he had appeared before Mr Fleming. Tbe letter, which was opened in the presence of the postmaster, contained two tickets for the Melbourne and New Zealand Cups, a programme with Fleming’s name attached, and a form of application for tickets. The matter formed the subject, of throe informations at the Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch, on November 4th, in which Plcm'ng was charged with selling the tickets, sen iing the handbill, and conducting a certain scheme by which money prizes are drawn for oy a mode of chance, contrary to the G lining and Lotteries Act. MrJ. B. Fisher, counsel for Fleming, tried to discredit the constable’s statement because ho had given a false name when buying the tickets. He also contended that no offence had occurred because the drawing had not taken place. Chief De tective Neill partially corroborated the constable’s statement, and Mr Beethara, R.M., said that he had followed the evidence and Mr Fisher’s contentions very closely, and according to the £et no one could be more completely in its toils than was Mr Fleming. The scheme put forward by the programme was to the effect that prizes were to bo gained, and that each ticket possessed three chances. The programme gave a list of those who had won on the last drawing. It did not give their names, but stated I heir occupations. Mr Fisher asked for the infliction of a nominal penalty as this was the first case brought under the new act, and it had generally been understood that the act was a dead letter. In the Australian colonies the police had failed to obtain convictions under a similar act. His Worship could not infl on a nominal penalty. The maximum nooalty fixed bv the Act was L 203, in .addition to two months’ imprisonnient with or without hard labour. The accused would be fined LIDO each in tbe first two cases taken co'lectivoly for tbe purchases of tbe penalty, and 20s on the third charge. The constable was in no way to blame, only bavin" obeyed the instructions of his superior officer. Had a private indivi nal laid the information ha would have allowed him half the flue.