PARLIAMENTARY WINNERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 288, 2 December 1905, Page 6

PARLIAMENTARY WINNERS.

A COMPETITION IN QUESTION.

INFORMATION DISMISSED.

Nearly a dozen Auckland stationers were, as already published, summoned before Mr. R. W. Dyer, SAL, in the Police Court yesterday for selling, in connection with a "Parliamentary shields" competition, a lottery ticket,, and also for exhibiting placards inviting persons to take shares in a lottery.

Mr. S. Mays (who prosecuted on behalf of the Crown Solicitor) concluded his Isgal argument for the prosecution by declaring that the competition was practically a Parliamentary race, in which competitors had "to pick the winners," without having the advantage of knowing the pedigree, handicaps and weights as they would in a horse race.

In reply to Mr. Mays, Mr. Cotter (for the defendants) said he did not know whether his friend had been instructed by the head of the Government to make the statement he had, but he would be surprised if the head of any Government believed that the election if members was absolutely a chance depending practically upon the turning of a die. Ths Act was not intended to prevent the sale cf shields, if the proprietor liked to give prizes in addition to the value. Mr. Cotter quoted from the New Zealand case of Henderson v. Neale, in which an appeal against the magistrate's decision was dismissed. The magistrate had held that the distribution of bonuses by a trading firm by means of coupons enclosed in packets of tea was not an infringement ot the Lottery Act. The circumstance of this competition were similar to that cf the "Parliamentary shield" competition. Mr. Cotter pointed out that the conditions of the competition were that persons struck out the names of those whom they thought would not be returned. It was open to competitors to strik? cut any number of names according to their judgment. A person in his dotage or a lunatic had not the same chance in this competition as a person with a knowledge of politics. Where something had to be acquired by the exercise of judgment, time given, or money paid, it did not come under the Lottery Act. Mr. Mays, in reply, contended that the shield, apart from the chance of a prize, was not worth a shilling. His Worship reserved decision until this morning, promising to give judgment as quickly as possible because the sale of "Parliamentary shields" was suspended in the meantime.

Mr. Dyer gave his decision in the Parliamentary shield case this morning. His Worship said that it was purely a question as to whether this scheme was a lottery within the meaning of the Act or not. After examining the decisions given in the various English and colonial cases, it seemed to be established that a scheme did not come within the Act if it was a. combination of skill and chance. In an election, as in other things, the element of chance came in to a greater or less extent., but there was always a corresponding element of skill and judgment necessitated to select the successful candidates. If the matter depended on chance alone, a new arrival to the colony would have as much chance of success as a person who had resided here for years, and was conversant with candidates and their chances of success. In this particular case he did not think a new arrival would have an equal chance, and, therefore, the clement of judgment came in to a greater or less degree—in fact, he considered, a very considerable degree, though of course the element of chance came in too, as it did in anything. He, therefore thought that the case against Colledge would have to be dismissed.

On the application of Mr. Mays, the remaining informations were withdrawn.

The proprietors of the Parliamentary shields wish to inform the public that, owing to these proceedings, all returns (Parliamentary shields) will be allowed to leave Auckland on the sth inst., instead of the 4tli inst., thus giving purchasers another day's grace.