THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 240, 5 September 1872, Page 7

THE COURTS.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LAWRENCE. (Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., R.M.) Monday, September 2nd. Cox v. Barett. — Claim of L 9, Judgment by default for amount claimed* with coats and plaintiff's expenses. Holmes (Town Clerk) v. Field* — Claim of LI 17s. for rates. This case had been a,djourned from the previous week, in consequence of the summons not having been returned. Mr. Pyke said thai the summons had been sent to Naseby on the 3rd August, and would pass through defendant's hands but it had not yet been returned. He had telegraphed to the Resident Magistrate at Naseby taascertain the reason of the delay in the return of j t^e summons ; and he felt inclined to report the whole circumata^oes to. the j Governme^ if * satisfactory explanation

were not given. He felt humiliated at being departmentally connected with a person who was being continually summoned j for debfc. In this case a fresh summons would be issued, which he would forward to the Kesident Magistrate at Naseby, in order to secure its being properly served. At this stage of the proceedings Dr. Stewart took his seat on the bench. THE GHOTESE lOItEET. Ah Chow was charged with having, on the 29th August, sold a lottery ticket, contrary to the Town and Country Police Ordinance. Inspector Thompson prosecuted; Mr. M'Coy appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Morton stated that on the 29th August he was in a store at the Chinese camp. He pointed to some tickets lying on a table. A Chinaman, who was sitting at a table, beckoned acoused, who came up and asked if he wished to buy a ticket. On replying in the arffimative, accused handed him a ticket (produced), for which he (witness,) paid a shilling. Accused then explained how to mark the ticket, and he, under these instructions, marked ; it. The ticket contained 80 character. If five marks were obtained, the prize was 2s. 2d., and prizes up to £100 were j given by the lottery bank. Cross-examined by Mr. M'Coy. — Did not know whether the store belonged to Ah Chow or not. Did not try to get £100.

By the Bench. — Was in uniform when he purchased the ticket.

Augustus Blewitt, Government Chinese Interpreter, identified the ticket produced as one issued by a Chinese lottery bank. It contained 80 characters. Tickets were issued at prices varying from 6d. to 23. 6d...; and the values of the prizes were regulated according to the price of the tickets. Prizes up to £100 were given. The ticket produced was a winning one, and its price was one shilling. When anyone purchased a ticket he marked off ten characters and kept it till the following day, when the drawing took place. The mode of drawing was as follows : — The banker wrote 80 characters on slips of paper and loosely folded them. These were handed to a bystander, who folded them carefully and placed them in a jar. Four basins, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively, were then produced, and the papers were taken out of the jar and distributed among the basins one by one, till there was 20 in each. The jar was then removed, and a number of coins placed on the table by the banker. These coins were taken away in fours, and the number remaining at the last denoted the number of the basin which contained the winning characters. For instance, if thore were 17 coins on the table the No. 1 basin would be chosen. When a basin had been selected, the other three were removed, and blank slips of paper and red ink placed before the banker. The 20 papers in the basin were then opened by some of the by-standers, and the characters upon them called out. As they were repeated they were written down. According to the number of characters thus written down on the ticket so the holder win 3or loses. The characters in the margin of the ticket denote the date of issue.

Mr. M'Coy said that a case had not been made out. From the description of the gambling 1 given by Mr. Blewiit, it could hardly come under the English definition of a lottery. |To procure a conviction, the banker's blocks ought to have been produced. There was no evidence to show that the accused was beneficially interested, that the lottery ever came off, or that the document producee was a lottery ticket at all. There was no evidence of the kind of prizes distributed by the lottery. They might have been works of art. Besides, the police had induced him to commit the offence, if any had been committed.

Mr. Pyke quoted the 23rd clause of the Ordinance, which is as follows : — "If any person shall establish, commence, or be a partner, or otherwise beneficially interested in any lottery or any scheme by which prizes, whether of money, or of any other matter, or thing, shall be gained, drawn, or thrown for, or competed for by lot, dice, or any other mode of chance ; or shall sell or dispose of any tickets, or other means by which permission or authority is gained or given to any person to throw for, compete, or have any interest in such lottery or scheme, or shall under any pretence, or by means of any device, sell or dispose of, or endeavor to sell or dispose of any lands, goods, wares, or merchandise by means of any game, either of skill or chance, every such person, being duly convicted thereof, shall forfeit and pay a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds, and for any second offence, besides such penalty, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding six months : But this provision shall not apply to the distribution of any property amongst the owners thereof, or to any raffle of any work purely of art, of which a notice, having the name and address of the person intending to hold the same subscribed thereto, shall have been given to the Superintendent, if the Superintendent shall not, within one week after snch notice, prohibit such raffle by notice sent by post or in any other manner, according to the address so subscribed by such person."

Mr: M'Coy said the fact of the matter was that his client was standing in the store when Sergeant Morton came in to purchase the ticket. The storekeeper was busy, and Ah Chow, merely to oblige the Sergeant, procured the ticket, and explained how it should be marked. It was hard that he should be prosecuted for merely obliging the police.

Mr. Pyke said the clause was very comprehensive. The police had aoted in an open straightforward manner ; the Sergeant waa in uniform when he purchased the ticket.

Mr. M'Coy said he would call the Interpreter to prove that the piece of paper produced was not a lottery ticket— was, in faot, a forgery* Mr. Pyke said that if the the ticket -vva.3 a forgery, accused laid himself open to a more serious charge than was then preferred against him. Mr. M'Coy : Sufficient for the day ia the evil thereof. The present charge was for selling a lottery ticket, and as a portion of the defence, he stated the paper purchased by the police was not a lottery ticket.

Mr. Pyke said that either the ticket was for a lottery, or accused had obtained money under false pretences.

jVlr. JVl'Ooy addressed the pencil in mitigation of the fine. This was the first case of the kind "bro'ig ht before the Court, and the man had only obliged the police, not knowing he was doing wrong. Air. Pyke said that the points urged by Mr, M'Coy might fairly be considered in mitigation of punishmeut. Tha Chinese apparently did not know that they were doing wrong, as there was no concealment — the tickets were openly sold. The present prosecution would give the Chinese a lesson in Western morality. .The conduct of those Europeans who did know better, and who participated in and encouraged the lottery, was disgraceful. He was determined that the Chinese should not debase the European mind by their pernicious gambling. They should keep their iniquities to themselves. In the present case, as it wa3 the first that had been brought, tha fine would be light ; but ho wished it to be distinctly understood, if the Chinese persisted in vitiating the minds of the Europeans with whom they came in contact by their Oriental vices, ne would punish them heavily. The Ordinance under which these prosecutions were instituted, gave him power to inflict a penalty of £50 ; and for a second offence, six months imprisonment in addition. The accused would be fined £3 and costs, 6s. 6d. ; or, 21 days imprisonment with hard labor.

Tom Way and Wing Leong charged with selling lottery tickets, pleaded guilty, and were each fined £3 and costs, 6s. 6d., with the alternative of 21 days imprisonment.