THE GOOSE AND THE MARBLE.

Kumara Times, Issue 2919, 8 March 1886, Page 2

THE GOOSE AND THE MARBLE.

[Dunedin Evening Herald, February 25.] Kenneth Artburson and Edward Hall were brought up at the Police Court, before Mr Carew this morning and charged on two informations with playing an unlawful game of chance on the racecourse yesterday, contrary to sections 8 and 18 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881. Mr Solomon appeared to prosecnte, and Mr D. M. Stuart for the defendants.

Ml- Solomon said there were two charges against these men—one under section S and the other under section 18 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. The facts in each case were the same. One of the defendants belongs to New Zealand whilst the other belongs to a party of "gentlemen" who have come over from Sydney and worked their way down to Dnnedin. Mr Stuart objected to this statement. Mr Solomon theu went on to explain the game that the men were playing There were three persons—two men and a goose. Mr Stuart: There is no mention of a goose i n the information. Mr Solomon: The goose ia not arrested yet.—[Laughter]. Mr Carew: I suppose one man is known as a goose. Mr Solomon : Oh, no, ifc is a real bird. Mr Solomon then went on to sny that there was also a box containing marbles numbered Ito 48. There were 10 tickets, each with five numbers o;i them, but the tickets had numbers f;om 1 to 60 on them, whilst the marbles were only numbered 1 to 48. He did not suggest that there was any cheating in the matter, as on each ticket there were four numbers out of the first 48, so that the holder of each ticket had an equal chance. The two men sold the full number of tickets at so much each, and when all were sold th« goose pulled a ticket from the box, allowing a marble to drop out, and the person who held the ticket with the corresponding number on it drew the whole of the sweep, or the money realised by the sale of the tickets, so that the game was presumably one of pure chance. The men did not make any profit on the game, or charge any commission, bat said, " We leave it to the generosity of the person who wins to remunerate us, «s he sees fit." Meu of this class did not tnvel about simply as public benefactors, and h*nd over all the stakes to the winner. The police laid this information under a couple of sections, but the facts as he stated them applied to both charges. These men when playing were surrounded by a dozen mates or confederates.

Mr Stuart objected to such a statement.

. Mr Solomon went on to say that in order to obtain a conviction under the Gaming and Lotteries Act it was not necessary to prove thnt the game was a swindle, but that it was a game of chance. The evident i mention of the Legislature had Ijcou to nut down such,

girnes as these, He concluded hy saying that these men set the law ui defiance, and nssisted in carrying on an illegal game or a lottery where prizes were competed for. Detective Bain gave evidence in support of counsel's openiug statement. Mr Stuart said that as far as the first charge under section 8 was concerned, there had been no evidence that either of the men were playing. Allowing that the information was correct, a keeper of a gaming house might also be charged with " playing." By the Amendment Act of 1885 sweeps on the racecourse were legal, provided that they did not exceed in the aggregate £5, that each person did not contribute more than ss, and that the money went to the winner without any deduction. He quoted a decision of Judge Seth Smith, at Auckland, to the effect that the judge had refused to make an order for the destruction of a small machine used in getting up

sweeps. Mr Carew held that in such a case the Court had no jurisdfction, as the Act pointed out that it was the duty of the police to confiscate and destroy all instruments used for the purposes of gaming. Mr Solomon having replied to Mr Stuart's contention, and the defendant Hall having given unimportant evidence, Mr Stuart quoted the definition of "sweepstakes" in Webster's and Johnson's dictionaries, and adduced evidence that the game complained of was within the protection of the statute. His Worship said he thought the case would come under section 8 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881, which shows that "every person playing or betting by way of wagering or gaming in any public place at or with any table, instrument or nutans of wagering or gaming in any coin, card, token, or other article used as an instrument or means of wagering or gaming shall be liable to a fine," &c. But section 7 of the Amendment Act, 1885, said : " Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as referring to any lottery which is or may be sanctioned under the authority of the said Act, and nothing in the said Act, or this Act contained shall apply to any sweepstake got up on a racecourse, provided that the total amount subscribed does not exceed £5, and that the several contributions thereto do not exceed 5s each, and that the whole sum contributed goes to the winner without any deduction on any account." He was therefore inclined to think that this game had been instituted by some gentleman of legal ability, and was one outside the effect of the law. He thought the game, by the reading of section 7 of the Amended Gaming and Lotteries Act, must be technically termed "a sweepstakes," and consequently the informations would be dismissed.

On one of the defendants thanking bis Worship for bis decision, his Worship said there was no need to thank him, as he would have been very glad to put a stop to the game if it. had been in his power.