BREACH OF GAMING ACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10609, 16 April 1912, Page 5

BREACH OF GAMING ACT.

IMPORTANT APPEAL CASES.

J (.By Telegraph—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Last -Night. I The Full Court, consisting of Justices Williams, Benniston, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman, sat this morning, ito hear the case of the International Investment' Co., Ltd., versus (Detective Andrews, in an appeal from the decision of Br McArthur, in convicting the appellant Company of an offence under (section 41 of the Gaming Act, 1908. 'The- offence consisted of selling to one Harold Peterson, on 25th January, 1912, at Wellington, certain means-—to wit, a premium bond issued by the Municipality, of Paris—by which .permission-was- given to 'thesaid Harold. Peterson to -have.'..an, interest in a-scheme'; by whichr.prizes .of hy a mode of chance. "The' "appefehttCfemipahy .'.wa-B fined- £SO, and onlea , ed;.to,-.pa:y>costs.. Sir John Fmdlay, K.C., and Mr Hanna, of Auckland, appears for the appellant, and the Solicitor-General" "for' ■the respondent.. Sir Jolid Fmdlay read an article, showing ifliat (between, seven* land eight hundred millions of money had been raised on. the Continent by means of premium bonds. This means of finance was looked upon with special favour in Fnance. and Belgium, and also in 'ltaly', and. Austria. He also referred ito an. article in .reference...to the National Debt, in the ninth,.volume of the iNcnv .Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition.. • Si r John F indlay cited, 'authorities in support of the following propositions:—That the scheme is not a lottery, merely because some part of it is determined jby lot, and ibbo benefit, connected with it are ina.de dependent on chance; if-the element cf'chance. was merely auxiliary to the main Abject, the scheme;was not a lottery; itmiist be shown that the •substantia! object of the whole' scheime must be a lottery,, tin older to bring it within, tlie law. The iSolicitoi'-G-eneral, in reply, contended that there was- no such principle as (that, contended by Sir John Findlay, and he cited authorities on the 'question. He mentioned that apart, from the .Sta.r-Bowkett scheme, every .scheme'is a 'lottery where an element of chance is inserted asi, aif inducement for people to compete in' the transaction. The argument was unfinished when the Court rose.