PICTURE PUZZLES

Hokitika Guardian, 10 November 1927, Page 1

PICTURE PUZZLES

NOT A LOTTERY

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

DUNEDIN, Nov 9. Stating that in his opinion a measure of skill was required in the solving of a racing picture puzzle, Mr J. K. Bartholomew, S.M., dismissed, an information against tho publisher, Francis Joseph Haywood, in a reserved judgment delivered in the City Police Court this morning. The case was one which was brought on by the police, following tho publication of a picture puzzle in “The Southern Sporting Guide.” Haywood (Mr C. J. L. ’White) was charged with commencing a scheme whereby money was competed for by a mode of chance.

Defendant’s scheme was known as “Sporting Pictures,” said the Magistrate in giving judgment. “Each of the pictures represented the name of a racehorse and only names of horses found in the “New Zealand Turf Register’’ and “Now Zealand Referee" were represented. A prize of CIO was provided and the entry fee was one shilling. Tho conditions stated that there was only one possible solution for each picture, and therefore only one name was allowed fm' each sealed solution, deposited with the defendant’s solicitor.”

The present case appeared to the Magistrate to lie covered by the decision in the Scott v. Director oT Public Prosecution, 1011, in which Judge Lush stated : “The answer appeals, no doubt, only to tho taste or fancy of the person who is to adjudicate, and there was an clement of chance in that sense, in the comjzctitions, hut that does not make adjudication a mere determination by chance, and nothing but chance. It appears to me that a decision according to honest taste or fancy is not a decision by chance, for nothing else, however justly one may belittle the class or degree of merit. Hie distinction is very plain between tlie person who buys a ticket for a lottery, and a person who competes even in a scheme like tills. 1 lie following passage from the ease, Barclay v. Pearson, seemed very much in point. Judge Stirling; <•!tinge a judgment of the Chief Magistrate at Row Street, apparently nssented to the view that if the object of t,K> competition was to find a most “appropriate” word, that was. tlie most appropriate in tho opinion of the editor, the scheme would not he a lottery. “This is substantially what fhe present defendant attempted to do" concluded the Magistrate, “and in my opinion, he has not ronimitW any offence.’’