A Tolago Case.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 31, 6 February 1901, Page 3

A Tolago Case.

An interesting case was heard at a special sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Tolago Bay yesterday morning, before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M. Maurice Fitzgerald, a wellknown station-holder, was charged by the police with having been guilty of three separate offences under the Gaming- and Lottorics Act, by establishing lotteries, first, by disposing of a watch by means of a raffle with dice in the early part of November, 1900, to certain persons in his employ ; secondly, that he did raffle at the end of November a shawl and a pair of dungaree pants to certain persons in his employ ; and, thirdly, that on the Ist of December, in the same year, he disposed of a saddle by lottery. Tho defendant pleaded guilty to each charge. The police called the evidence of Leonard Babbington and Honcana Tautau. The former gave evidence as to tho watch being raffled, and stated that lie took the numbers at each raffle. The watch was won by tho daughter of Martin Fitzgerald, brother of tho defendant. It was a rolled gold Waterburv. Afterwards Maurice Fitzgerald offered him the watch for sale, and it was eventually sold for £2 15s. The evidence of the police was that the watch at the outside was not worth £2, and that they frequently handled watches of the same sort valued at £1 2s 6d to £1 ss. The tickets for the raffle, it was stated, were 5s tickets, and the sum of £6 was subscribed. The money was deducted from the men’s wages. Honcana Tautau, who bought tho watch, subsequently complained that it would not go right, and told Fitzgerald that he would rather leave the watch and take the full amount of his wages. Fitzgerald said, “ No, you can’t do that. If you hadn’t taken it, another Maori named Wiremu Ivonohi would have given a horse for it. You must take it: it was a genuine sale.” Eventually the Native took the watch. Defendant, in his evidence, said that he looked upon it as a genuine sale. There was no compulsion on his part with regard to the disposal of the tickets. With regard to the saddle that was raffled, the only evidence called was as to its value. Fitzgerald said it was a fiveguinea saddle, 12 months old, and was bought for £3 10s by a European. It was raffled for about £4. Sergeant Siddclls said defendant had practically compelled his men to take tickets In raffles that he promoted ; for in a ease where an employer of labour promoted a lottery, it was not likely that the men would refuse to take tickets. In the case of the watch. Fitzgerald had obtained a greatly excessive value for it. The practice would have been bad enough with an intelligent people, but where a man with large property who had been emplpying Natives dealt with them in tliis way, the practice was very much the worse, and therefore should be put down with a firm hand. He had known the same class of watch sold for £1 2s 6d, and rhouglit £2 was an outside value of the one purchased. The Magistrate said there was absolutely no excuse for a large owner of land and an employer of labour being guilty of a practice of this kind. He was quite satisfied that defendant knew he was breaking the law in promoting these raffles.

The defendant rose to speak, but his Worship said : “ No, I cannot hear you.” Accused was fined on the first information £lO, and in the two other eases £5 each, the costs being in the first case £1 11s, £1 13s 9d witnesses’ expenses, and £1 Is interpreter’s fee; in the second case 16s cost; and hi the third 13s 6d costs and 10s 6d interpreter’s fee; in all, £26 5s 9d.