An Interesting Judgment

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3643, 28 April 1906, Page 3

An Interesting Judgment

■Jit GAMING AND LOTTERIES V ACT.”

Mr A. D. Thomson on Tuesday gave judgment in the case heard last week, in which J. B. Clarkson was the defendant in a charge oi a breach of “The Gaming and lotteries Act.” Mr Thomson said the scheme was one for the disposal Of a prize of a bicycle _ by chance, and as such was prohibited by “The Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881.” “ The defendant,” said the S.M., “ is summoned in his individual capacity and it is contended that there is no evidence to convict him with the scheme. In my opinion there is.” The judgment went on to say, “ That It is proved that at the time the alleged offence was committed the defendant was the managing director and actively superintended and controlled its business in Palmerston North; that the handbills notifying the scheme were placed outside the Palmerston North shop where defendant was very frequently; that a similar notification was inserted in the Palmerston papers; and that on the morning following the summons the advertisement appearing In the Manawatu Daily Times was withdrawn and another advertisement submitted stating that as the police intended prosecuting J. B. Clarkson and Co., Limited, for announcing their intention to give a ladys’ or gents’ bicycle free, the advertisement had been withdrawn. Mr Thompson thought these facts sufficiently showed that the defendant knew _ of the scheme, aided in providing it, and, by a considerable extent at anyrate, controlled it. He was therefore liable to the same extent as the Company itself would be, for by Section 73 of the Criminal Code “Everyone is a party to and guilty of an offence who does, or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence. 1 ’ The information was laid under Section 18 of “ The Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881.” It was contended that that section deals With a scheme by which “ prizes” are gained, and does not apply to the present case in which there m Was only one prize. “ I do not tsiink,” said Mr Thomson, “ that contention can be upheld, but in any case that objection does not apply to section 16 of the same Act,” He thought the charge might have been laid under that section-, and if necessary the information could be amended. To avoid any question, therefore, he would amend the information, and, the defendant not desiring a further adjournment, he would convict the defendant for that he did, in March, 1906, promise to dispose of certain property, to wit, a bicycle, by means of a device whereby such bicycle should be allotted to some person by chance. Mr Thomson said he could not understand that the defendant in the present case should have allowed the scheme to go on, as he must have known what the judgment was in a similar case heard not long ago. Defendant would be convicted only on the first charge, but on the second he would be fined and costs 9s.—Manawatu Times.