Shampoo as Prize For Bald Detective

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 761, 6 September 1929, Page 1

Shampoo as Prize For Bald Detective

THEATRE PRIZE NIGHT LOTTERY CHARGES intense legal argument and a close inquiry into a special “prize night” run at a suburban picture theatre until recently, attended the prosecution of Lester Sinclair at the Police Court this morning on two charges of conducting a lottery. r T l HE charge, which was brought under section 39 o£ the Gaming Act, 1908, concerned the evenings of May 23 and June 6. It was alleged that defendant, by awarding prizes to occupants of certain numbered seats, allotted personal property among persons by a chance, the chance being that they were members of the audience on the evening when the prizes were distributed; Mi-. Singer entered a plea of not guilty on defendant’s behalf. Mr. V. N. Hubble prosecuted. Detective O’Sullivan told the court of a visit he had made to the theatre on May 23, a prize night. He had gone with Detective Mills, aud they had occupied seats 1 and 2 in row Q. Before the pictures started witness had noticed defendant walking up aud down the aisle and apparently noting several patrons and the numbers of their seats. After the interval defendant had mounted to the stage, where there were sacks of potatoes and other articles. He had then called the number of a seat and row, naming a prize for the patron occupying that seat. “For instance,” said witness, “he called out that there was a prize for the gentleman sitting in seat 2, row Q, which was me. The first prize he sent down to me was a packet of shampoo, but I called out, ‘What’s the use of shampoo for a bald man?’ and he sent me a large pumpkin.” Witness estimated that about 40 prizes had been distributed. The detective referred to another prize night he had attended on June 6. He had not seen Sinclair that night before the show, but an usher had walked up and down the aisles. The prizes, about 29 of them, had been distributed in the same manner as previously. The house was fairly full, though there was not as large an attendance as on the previous occasion. The detective admitted to Mr. Singer that he was a regular patron of the theatre, apart from his duty visits. A youth aged 17, also a regular patron, who said that he had a nodding acquaintance with the manager of the theatre, said that he had received two shaving brushes as a prize.

Mr. Hubble pointed out that the public who went to the theatre expecting a surprise night and a distribution of prizes was not aware that the prizes were awarded by the arbitrary judgment of the manager. “Even if the selection of the persons to whom prizes were given was not by chance,” continued counsel, “there is still the question of the selection of the actual prizes and unless defendant can say that he selected a particular prize for a particular person, he was undoubtedly running a lottery. Defendant will say that he selects the prize-winners from among his regular patrons but there must be more regular patrons than prizes and that leaves a chance as to the person selected. Assuming that everyone in the theatre received a prize, it would still be a lottery unless they all received similar prizes.” Counsel quoted authorities at length. Mr. Singer assured the court that Sinclair had been careful to select his regular patrons as prize-winners and to allot appropriate prizes by the exercise of his judgment. Defendant, put in the box by counsel, explained the method followed by him in awarding the prizes. He knew his patrons and gave them prizes suitable to their rquirements. Mr. Hubble: Yvhat about shampoo powders for a bald man? Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M.: Or a pumpkin for a detective? Mr. Singer: The latter may have been intended for his department. Counsel was of the opinion that, if the surprise night were considered a lottery, the distribution of Christmas presents by an hotel-keeper, for in- j stance, was a lottery. Mr. Singer said that it was obvious I Decision was reserved.