Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AID FOR CHARITIES

DUKE OF AT-HOLL’S SWEEPSTAKE. SEQUEL HEARD BEFORE COURT. .United Press Association —By Eiectrit Telegraph— Copyright.) LONDON, November 14, The Duke of At boll was charged av Row Street Court with an alleged infringement of the Lotteries Act, this being the sequel to a distribution of money from the Duke’s lottery I'una, Tire prosecution -based ffie charge on a ticket sold to Arthur iChaPPel, of Bournemouth.

The prosecution said that, apparently the Duke honestly beiieved that he had invented a method -of evading the Lotteries Act, which had stood the test of 270 years. The Dulc e originally intended to conduct a sweep -on the St, Leger, which he abandoned. He -later asked one ’million people t 0 subscribe 10s each to charity, not promising any prizes, but suggesting that this would kill the ‘lrish Sweepstake. He used his original s w eep tickets, but with the word “cancelled” printed on the front of them, and on the back, these being surcharged with a statement saying that the ticket was the mementol of an effort to -assist British charities and also that the proceeds would 'be disposed of at the Duke of -Atholl’s 'discretion.

The prosecution added Lliat . only mentally deficient persons could have •doubted that the Duke of Athol 1 intended to allot prizes.

Mr Norman Birkett, who was defending, said the Duke had not offered any contractual right to a chance in a 'distribution of the proceeds, which contractual right had hitherto figured in previous convictions. C on isaquenitly his conviction was impossible.' The prosecution had not proved that when a man paid 10s he bought a chance in the subsequent distribution. Arthur Cbappel was recalled, and he gave evidence that he, decidedly, thought that ho -was purchasing a chance in a distribution. The defence did not call any evidence. Judgment was reserved. The Duke of Athull received one hundred and fifty-two thousand pounds in response to his appeal. The prize winners in his distribution received thirty-eight thousand pounds, and .charities fifty-nine thous* and. while the expenses totalled fifty seven thousand pounds.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19331116.2.48

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 16 November 1933, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
346

AID FOR CHARITIES Hokitika Guardian, 16 November 1933, Page 5

AID FOR CHARITIES Hokitika Guardian, 16 November 1933, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert