PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 306, 24 December 1881, Page 3

PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT.

The folio-wing is from the Evening Post of last night : — At the R.M. Court this morning, before Mr E. Hardcastle, R.M., and Messrs Campbell, Toomatb, and the Hon. J. Johnston, J.P.s Sir William Fitzherbert, Horatio M'Cullock Lyon, F. H. Bell, and the Hon J. Martin were charged that they did, on the 30th of NoVember last, take part in a sweep contrary to the GaroiDg and Lotteries Act. Mr E Shaw conducted the prosecution, Mr Fitzherbert appeared for Sir Wil iam Fitzherbert, Mr Gully for Mr Lyon, Mr Gordon Allan for Mr Bell, and Mr Buckley j for the Hon John Martin. Mr E. Shaw, in opening the case, said he appeared to charge the defendants with being partirs in an offence under the Act. The facts were siinplr — A race menir-e was ht id at the Lower Huu, where pnzes were given for the various race. The defendants were present, aod the infnrma'it, as a police officer, attended on du r y He took a nnte rf the sran?gr s=pr* asaicst this Ac. The Act was h very stringent one, anrf h*d been paaspr? brcau-e the o'd impj-rial A"f was not sufficient, though ihe prp. c ent Act wa9 almoa Hentiral with the law as it existed i-i England &*. the present time. The defendatit3, through Mr Lyon, asked the detective to watch them draw a sweep, and report it to his superior officer. Trie detective did so, and n ported accordingly, and this Droß-rufion was iher>up' n initiated Sir William Fi 2herbert, with tie usual luck of a novice, won the sweep. The rroaecution was under th^ 18th and 19th sections of the Act._ It might he said that the Bench could not judicially infer what constituted a sweepstake, but they had to take a common sense view of what did constitute a sweepstake. He bad looked into Webster, who defined a sweepstake as one that swept the board, He proceeded to define what constituted a sweepstake, arguing that under the Act a sweepstake was a lottery. The defendants were partners in a lottery clearly within the meaning of the Act, for a money prize was competed for by lot, and their Worships must come to the conclusion that it was a scheme in which a money prize was competed foxby lot. He held "that the defendants were ] partners, though no doubt it would be urged that they had no community of interest. The Legislature, in framing this Act, intended it to be applied in its broadest sense, and a man was a partner who took part with another in every lottery or scheme. They were partners till the drawing, and their Worships no donbt would come to that conclusion op hearing the evidence. Detective Chrystal said he was on duty at the Hutt racecourse on the 30th of November last, in the enclosure. There was an extra price charged for admission to that portion of the ground. A hack hurdle race was run for, to which was attached a money prize. At the request of Mr Lyon, the Hon John Martin, and Sir William Fitzherbert. he watched them draw a sweep, in order to test the question as to whether the Act was intended to apply to cases of the sort. Witness saw Mr Mr Bell hand over half a sovereign to Mr Lyon, and each of the other defendants did the same, after which, the sweep was drawn in the usual manner. Sir William Fitzherbert drew No. I—(laughter1 — (laughter) — Mr Lyon drew No. 4, and No. 2 for Mr P,ell, Mr Martin drawing No. 3. Witness was afterwards informed that Sir William Fitzherbert won the sweep. The transaction was what he always understood to be a sweep. The Hon John Martin said that they did not thiuk the Act applied to small sweeps on the racecourse, but to sweeps of the kind that North got up. (Laughter.) Sir Fitzherbert said that was, in fact, his defence, viz., that the Act did not apply to sweeps of this kind. la reply to Mr Buckley, witness aaid he knew DOtbin/r of North's sweep, but Mr Martin or Sir William Fitzberbert spoke about it at the time. North got up a sweep of some thousands, and s*eot them all away with him (Laughter.) Witness held the hat when the 9weep was drawn. (Laughter.) He was not a party to the transaction, but fee held the bat after some of the tick-ts were drawn. He would not like to do anything wrone, and he <iH no : inform againsDetective Cbrysal (Laughter.) He had TPad some of the Garni. .jjt and Lotteiirs Act. He did not read ilnnses 18 and 19, but it nid not s-r:ke him -hat an information should be laid «fiainst him for pamcipaving in tru tra- 1 "' o'io-i. That concluded the case for the prosecution. Mr Shaw said that they were quite willingto accept the defendant's explanation that defendants entered into the matter in order to test the question as to whether the offence in question was a sweepstake within the meaning of the Act He (Mr Shaw) was placed in a difficulty, for he ha ! to anticipate the defence that would be made. Mr Buckley said that it was not fair to call upon counsel for the defendants to disclose their defence. Mr Shaw denied that he was pleading «rfmiatricordiam for a conviction. If their Worships were of opinion that an offence had been committed, he did not seek a heavy penalty, he only sought to give a warning to the public. Mr AMan argu'd that the prosecution could not be sustained. Legislatures at times became very moral, and passed ineaenres which were never intended to be strictly carried out, but, a 9 in the present case, to check gambling on a large scale. This Act was never intended to apply to little sweeps of the kind, bat to put a stop to the large lotteries that bad become so common prior to the Act being passed. The prosecution had been brought under the 18th and 19th sections of the Act, but he urged that the alleged offence did not come within their provisions, and that they merely applied to persons who, for gain, got up a lottery. Those participating in a sweep of ! the kind must have been partners in some gain under tha partnership, but ia a sweep like that described there was no such res nit. Therefore there could be no partnership j as alleged. He qnoted a case in support where a gift distribution at an entertainment took place, when it was sought to bring in those who obtained gifts, but where it was held that the man giving away the gifts was alone liable. When in a sweep like this the money was deposited, it ceased to be the property of any depositor, but became the property of the winner, and they ceased to have any interest in if. How could that be a partership, and how could any profits be divided? He submitted that the case was too ridiculous for argument. The case conld Dot come wi'hia the clause, for the defendants were not partners, and received no consideration. If that was the law, anyone taking an interest in an Art Union at Home might be proceeded against and convicted. The prosecution had wholly failed, and the case had not been made out — first, because no partnership had been proved ; and secondly, because it was not prompted by any one man for the purpose of gain. The Act merely applied to the large lotteries and not to such as these. Messrs Buckley, Fitzherbert. and Gully also addressed the Bench for the defence. The judgment was published in our yesterday's issue.