THE PAK-A-POO CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8868, 19 July 1907, Page 2

THE PAK-A-POO CASE.

Per Press Association. Wellington, July 18. Joe Gee v. Williams was heard before the full bench of the Supreme Court to-day. Appellant was convicted and fined £IOO at Wellington on a charge of selling tickets for pak-a-poo. For the defence it was contended that pak-a-poo was a game of chance and not a lottery and that the information was laid under the wrong section of the Act, that there was'no proof that any lottery did take place, and that pak-a-poo was not a mode of chance by which prizes are gained within the meaning of the Act. The magistrate overruled these contentions and an appeal was lodged. As somewhat conflicting judgments had been given by Sir E. Stout and Justice Williams on tho game of pak-a-poo the case was hoard by the full bench. Mr Chapman; K.C., and Mr Wilford were for appellant. Mr Myers was for respondent. Mr Chapman opened the case on the lines of the defence in the lower Court. Tho hearing was not finished to-day. July 19.

In the Pakapoo case Mr Wilford, for appellant, raised technical objections and also argued that it was not a game by which the prizes were distributed by a mode of chance, as each player made a separate wager with bank and if he won could not bo said to win what was ordinarily called a prize. . Money paid for a ticket was certainly not a prize. Mr Meyers, for respondent, cited authorities to show that in Australia, as well as in Now Zealand/ Pakapoo had been held to bo a lottery. The Court intimated that there was no validity in the contention that the name of purchasers of tickets should have been stated.

Mr Chapman replied briefly aud judgment Wffo reserved.