HALF-CASH REFUND

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 834, 30 November 1929, Page 13

HALF-CASH REFUND

ADVERTISING SCHEME A LOTTERY WELLINGTON FIRM FINED (From Our Resident: Reporter) WELLINGTON, Friday. By promising to give a refund of Half cash to those presenting receipts bearing a certain date, a Wellington firm has drawn upon itself a penalty of £25, and costs. A plea of guilty was entered by Mr. W. H. Cunningham, counsel for defendants, to the charge of having promised to dispose of property by lottery or chance. Chief-Detective Lopdell said that the firm’s publicity officer, with the full knowledge and consent of the manager, advertised a scheme whereby a promise was made that a refund of 50 per cent, of the purchase price of goods procured on a certain date during November would be made to holders of receipt dockets issued on a day to be known as “refund day.’’ To decide the day to be known as refund day slips of paper, bearing numbers representing a business day in November were placed in a hat. The manager at random drew out one slip bearing a number, and without examining the slip placed it inside an envelope and gummed the envelope down. The remaining; slips in the hat were burned immediately without examination.

The number in the envelope decided which day was to be regarded as refund day, and no person had bad any possibility of knowing which of the 26 numbers referred to was m the envelope. The envelope was to be opened on December 2 in the presence of a justice of the peace and the bank manager. An elaborate half-page advertisement, drawing attention to the scheme, lias been published, and a copy was gummed on the front window of the firm’s shop in Courtenay Place. Receipt dockets were given to customers with the following words stamped on by a rubber stamp: “Keep this receipt. Today may prove to be our half-cash refund day. Date published December 2, 1929.”

Mr. Cunningham said there appeared to be no doubt that the scheme was in contravention of the Gaming Act. The firm, as a result of the prosecution, was in mid-air. The Act had been contravened, but at the same time the firm had made a promise to the public, and although it wished to do so it might be committing another offence by keeping faith with the public. Mr. E. Page, S.M.: I think they can keep faith with the public and take the punishment now for the complete act. I think it unlikely that the police will prosecute the defendants a second .time for this action. Mr. Page said it appeared clear to him that the operations of ihe defendants came within Section 39 of the Gaming Act.