FUR COAT LOTTERY.

Shannon News, 7 August 1923, Page 3

FUR COAT LOTTERY.

WOMEN’S LUCKY PURCHASE. HAMILTON TRADER FINED £2O. ‘ HAMILTON, July 30. A charge of conducting a. lottery was brought in tne Hamilton Magistrate’s Court toi-day, against Harold David Caro' (Mr Tompkins), proprietor of the Great Bargain Stores. De-

pendant pleaded not guilty. Detective-Sergeant Sweeney, .who prosecuted, sid that on Tuesday. June 26, an advieii'tisenmt was inserted in the Waikato Times, advising tlie public tihat| a fur coat, valued at 40 gns, would Be, given to tlie: purchaser of a certain article in delendant’s shop. 'The. article was one in daily use. if., announcement specified tliat the purchase must be made on Wednesday, June 27, and that . the coat must be claimed by Friday, 'June 29. Arthur JEUjwaird fiVXarmln.g’, m|anaging director of the Waikato Times, said that, acting on instructions from defendant, witness placed a coupon in a packet of soap. On the ticket was written : “This entitles the holder to a handsome fui coat.” On June 28,

Mrs F. W. Kemp called tO' see him, and produced the ticket. Witness endorsed the ticket, which authorised the claimant to get the coat. The Magistrate (to witness): Have you been charged with assisting in a lottery —No. The Magistrate: Do you expect to be—No. (Laughter). THE FORTUNATE PURCHASER, Maud Kemp said that she purchased two cakes of soap from defendant’s shop on June 27. Witness had no idea of looking for the coupon when she entered the shop, and bought the soap. She) had forgotten about the ad vertisement. On reachmg home she found the coupon and later claimed the coat.

Detective-Sergeant Sweeney said that the defendant admitted inserting the advertisement. Defendant had said the coat was handed to Mrs Kemp on his instructions, and he had accepted all responsibility. Witness had had the coat examined by people in the trade, and they had described the arti cle as a mock squirrel coat and assessed its retail value at £l6 16s.

Daniel Freedman, manager for defendant, said that, with the object of stimulating business, he and Mr Caro decided to make a free gift. In the advertisement it was announced that thei’article in which the coupon was placed, was freely bought and used. Mr Caro gave him a marked packet of soap, and told him that the coupon was Inside it. When. Mrs Kemp came in and asked for soap, witness decided to give her the marked packet. He did not know Mrs. Kemp. She had been in the' shop frequently.

To the Magistrate : The wholesale price of the coat, was 30 guineas. The retail value wias 40 guineas. The packet of soap containing the coupon had to be sold on the Wednesday. It was getting near the end oi thei day. The weather was bad, and business was slack. ~ “SOMEONE TO GET. THE COAT.” Harold David Caro, proprietor oi the shop in question, sid it was determined that someone was to get the coat, The packet was marked to ensure that the coat would be given ■away on the Wednesday. The brand oi soap was in' constant demand, anu ;here was. no question that tliat kind oi soap would be asked for that day. Mr Tompkins contended that the arrangement was to make a gilt and not to conduct a lottery j there was no stake put up by people entering the shop; and that in the actual disposal of the coat there was no element of chance at all. Mrs Kemp went into the shop without any thought of the coat. The customer asked for a particular brand of soap, and the defendant's assistant intentionally gave her the marked packet. In giving his reserved decision this afternoon, Mr H. A. Young, S.M., held that defendant had contravened Sec-

tion 39 of the Gaming Act, which forbade any person to dispose of personal property by lottery, or chance, by a draw or ticket. A fine of £2O was imposed with costs.