ALLEGED LOTTERY

Hokitika Guardian, 14 August 1929, Page 5

ALLEGED LOTTERY

MARKING PHOTOGRAPHS. - PROSECUTION SUCCEEDS. 1 WELLINGTON, August 12. James Smith, Ltd., drapers, were convicted by Mr -L. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court on. Saturday morning on charge of having promised to dispose of property by littery or chance. In giving his .reseirved decision in the matter the Magistrate said that the facts in the case were that 'the defendants advertised rtliat' they would award £3 in prize money to. * those-.who were market! in photographs taken each Saturday at Athletic Park. Four photographs of different sections of the crowd ipf onlookers at the Park were taken, and firm’s advertising manager sel-... ected one of the four pictures, anif picked out four headsamongst the Hundred, or- so in the picture. Fn .a following advertisement the selected photograph; with. the. four : heads marked by. a ring 1 round each,, ’was published, ' and- With,;- it ■ a; statemant advising the ringed' ones to,-; cut-put the, advertisement and apply’" /with/ it, to their,/advertising manager, who" would issue an order for lps, .which could. be applied ;iii the purchase of a new suit.or newbat.Two grounds for the defendants (Mr- G. ; jG. .White); in answer to' the chargq/’iThey .were': // (1) That the selection of.tlio wiunors of the prizes ' was not decided by chance, but by the deliberate choice of the defendants’ advertising man-’ ager; (2) that there were no adventurers in /'the alleged lottery.- or' contributors to tlie j fund from /which .. the .prizes were drawn,, and that, the distribution was wholly and the scheme .’therefore not, a lot-” tery. " p' . Continuing, Mr Page said that it was true some chance was exercised by the advertising manager, hut ho thought that, as between those competing or eligible for the prize the substantial result). of - the’.. • alleged f choice was that it was . determined ( solely (by chance. Counsel's second ground raised a difficult question. The definition of lottery contained in the Act was very wide, and referred to the disposal of property “whe-; ther with or without consideration.” . In the present case it was clear that the distribution was not intended to be gratuitous. It was a method employed by tho defendants to advertise their goods. They ex-, pected a return in - the way of increased business, and probably got" it. ■ It was difficult to say whether the additional inducement of a chance ofone of these 15s prizes would cause -. anyone, who would not otherwise have gone, to attend the football match. But, to qualify for a chance of a prize an entrance fee to the Park had to be • paid, though presumably ho part. of - that money went to the defendants. The prize awarded to the lucky ,;onea ; was not an unconditional grant. The. - defendants said in effect, “If you. are one of the winners .and will .place, an order for a suit or a hat with us, we will give .you credit for the first 15s of the purchase money.”,.. In this way the defendants were, apart from the. advertising l>enefit of the scheme, calculated to reap a return. . Moreover,, this was not a single distribution but a series extending over weeks, so that' each successive set of winners would by their purchases assist to provide the., .und for the subsequent winners. It was not necessary that all the individuals that', might have a chance should contribute to- the roimbusing of the d<£" fendants. . In a case decided by Mr Poynton, S.M. at Auckland, in 1923, identical (as to this point) with the present one, it was held that the scheme amounted to a lottery* The Magistrate concluded by saying that in his opinion the distribution detailed was not gratuitous, and therefore the second ground taken by counsel could not be sustained., Tho defendants would tliereforo have to be convicted. ' The fixing of the penalty was deferred .to enable counsel to consider the question of au appeal. o