THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6498, 24 December 1881, Page 5

THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT.

THE LAW UPHELD. [Fro PbBSS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Dec. 23. Great interest to-day was centred in the information laid against SirW. Fitzhsrbert, the Hos J. Martin, and two other gentlemen for breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, by taking part in a sweepstake on the Hutt coarse on Not. 30. The case was heard before the Besident Magistrate and three Justices. The legal points raised by the defence were:—l. That the defendants were not partners in any known legal interpretation of the words, as used in the 18th and 19th dames of the Act; that the partnership there referred to was evidently that of persons who promoted a sweep for consideration or profit, showing the profits or loss as matter of business. 2. That the sections of the Act referred to evidently contemplated others than the partners in the sweep, as they expressly referred to those who held tickets or were assured prizes. On the analogy of the Lottery Act cates in England the holders of tickets were not to be deemed partners. 3. That the whole policy of the Act was to put down organised and professional gambling, not to interfere with private amusement, and thafc the legal definition of gambling was playing to excess, not the mere act of playing a game even for money. After half an bom's deliberation the following judgment was delivered The magistrates think they must convict the defendants. They think the facta alleged are proved, and that they are prohibited by law. They think that in cases like this, persons likely to commit the prohibited act would think it prohibited by nothing but the law j and therefore as the only deterrent is the money lost, that should always be sufficiently substantial to deter. In this special com, they think the eminence of position of the defendants, the publicity and deliberation of the aot, call for a vindication of the law. The defendants were fined £lO each. The Hon J. Johnston, who was one of the Justices on the Bench, dissented from this decision. Daring the hearing of the case it transpired that the informant. Detective Chryital, had actually held the hat while the tickets were being drawn. An information was therefore immediately laid against him for assisting in the affair. In another cate against six gentlemen on a similar charge five were discharged through insufficient evidence. The sixth, who had made an admission to the detective that be had taken part in the sweep, was fined £2. Notice of appeal was given m all the cases.