LOTTERY SCHEME

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20063, 9 October 1939, Page 5

LOTTERY SCHEME

PLAN TO RAISE MONEY “HIGH PRESSURE WORK” ORGANISER’S CLAIM FAILS MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT A claim for commision amounting to £27 10s from Now Then, Limited, of Wellington, brought by B. H. De Rose, formerly of Wellington, and now of Napier, failed after a hearing in the Magistrate’s Court in Wellington, before Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., the magistrate saying that it was a question of word against word. “We can say it was a highly speculative concern or scheme,” said the magistrate after hearing the evidence, “and that it was necessary to obtain public subscriptions in a quite unorthodox way.” De Rose, who was represented by Mr. W. P? Pringle, said in his statement of claim that he was engaged by defendant company as national field organiser to obtain for the company subscriptions to a fund to be used for canvassing New Zealand and promoting a referendum for the purpose of ascertaining from the electors their reactions to a scheme for national lotteries and to present to Parliament a petitition to amend the existing gaming laws and allow the defendant company to conduct lotteries in New Zealand. Overriding Commission In addition to salary and expenses, it was alleged that defendant agreed to pay plaintiff an overriding commission on all subscriptions obtained by or through the instrumentality of the plaintiff, payable at the rate of £1 for every 400 of such, with a bonus in addition to commission for obtaining 100,4)00 subscriptions in five months. Plaintiff alleged that he had obtained 11,000 subscriptions during that period and on this he based his claim. Sydney Ernest Brown, who stated that he was chairman of directors of the company, said it had been decided to form a partnership of three to canvass the country for advertising for a publication to further the scheme and it was later decided to appoint De Rose as field organiser, an arrangement to pay a salary of £3 a week and travelling expenses being made by witness before De Rose was introduced to the directors. De Rose stated to the directors at a meeting that he would write up 100,000 subscriptions in five months. Disappointing Result The directors offered him a bonus of £250 for every 100,000 subscriptions he could get in five months, added witness, and they said if he should fall short of that mark they would “be reasonable.” He thought 11,000 subscriptions in five months was a very disappointing result. Early in April it looked as if they might get the 100,000, said witness. Two labour union secretaries on the West Coast had given him a deposit of £4O on an option to buy the original £2OOO of shares in the company at £IOO per £1 share. No member of the Government or the Labour Party was connected with the proposed sale. Plaintiff Non-suited The whole case was one of high pressure work in getting in money, added the magistrate, and one could see it was ridiculous to suggest that a bonus of £250 would be offered unless it was a reward for obtaining subscriptions from a large number of gullible people in a very short space of time.

Mr. Luxford held that the contract was that plaintiff was to receive salary and travelling expenses and a bonus of £250 if he could succeed in getting 100,000 shares. Plaintiff was nonsuited and ordered to pay the costs of the action.