ALLEGED LOTTERY.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 January 1923, Page 4

ALLEGED LOTTERY.

[nv TET.EGIIAril —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION j

WELLINGTON. Jan 19. An unusual scheme of business advertisement was described at tin. Algi.st rate’s Court to-day. w hen Janies Hill and l!oyill Harrell, of the firm o. Hill, Hnrerli and Co., clothiers, Courtenay Blace ,appeared before -M l ' 1 ■ L’age. 5.. M.. on charges of establishing iv scheme by which prices were w, b v chance, and with managing a lottery. There were eight informal ions against each defendant. Ihe prosecution was conducted by Sub-l nspectoi Cummings. and the accused. who pleaded not guilty, wdx. represented l,v .Mr M. C. Alazongarb. The Sub-inspector said that the informations were laid under Section -U of the (kilning Act ISMS. Ihe Ini ts ol the case were admitted by counsel tor defendants, and the only question which arose was as to whether the charges had been established. 1 *'• defendant semployed canvassers, wli went about to seek clients and upon a, being paid, gave each person a card. I poll this card system, it v , explained, the customers each paid per week to lhe defendants, who -e----ki-.-ted curb week from among the customers. one person who was entilhd to (mods to the value of C l H's. without 3 further payment. Upon a person having paid instalments totalling Am Ills the equivalent in goods was supplied. and a subscriber could pay any unpaid balance of his Cl H's and collect hi> goods. A subscriber w"> was mu i essful in being chosen could not bo again chosen without entering into a fresh contract. The scheme was a verv profitable one as far as the e0m,,.,,,'v was concerned. The del. mh.nts had' some .TK) cusioiners. Iron, iAO w-eeklv was collected, but there was' only on- "I Cl HJ; wm ill of goods 'inch week H took almost a year lor the sub-m iheis <> p,v the full amount m instalments ol •V per week, and dining this time i lie defendaills had the u-e of consuhirahle moiit'v. interest- free. , Counsel for the deleiidaiits ,-a-d o mdy (pii-elion was as to whele-r Ha distribute n wn> hv ciiance. -•- ' ’ tl„, element of elnun-e entered n. „ haphazard selection would in -ml the object oi the prop,tors. who. jn their own inf.-rests ■ <K ' l ' T t „ Dried such customers as wed Util l prove the host puldieily Ol' ■ ..1.-.me. tar from being mi - main Im-tor. pbiyd '-i ~-,,-t The del eudail Is, n.g io New Z aland, were . me or » peril.d ol two .ears e'",.low"l a t'li-m eonduciiug husiuc." .; ni il ar lines in ihe Australian S a manager m Western Ai.sI. : ,|ia. an.l rhe other as an ' i ' -,s -i m i/.e-wiiiner had been chosen f- r -me special reason The e m„e,u of chance had not prcdoin.iii.t. , .<• • of the prnpnouu's hail ni ■ ad fairly by tbeir ami tl , keep within the law. | Decision in Hie mat.ter was re.-mie 1,1 ii", 1 the difen'dalits'.'tin' fOI. said he did no. 11. the system a very sin.* ><' , ' -im-e the defendants had cut. .0 into' contracts lo supply console,-i.Uv than they had on hand.