NO LOTTERY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 158, 6 July 1934, Page 3

NO LOTTERY.

CLEM DAWE'S GIFT SYSTEM

COURT DISMISSES CHARGES.

The charge of establishing a lottery, brought against Clem Dawe, comedian, and the charge of assisting in the management of a lottery against Joseph Shriller, a member of the same company, were dismissed by Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Police Court this morning. Senior Detective Hall prosecuted, and Mr. Conlan represented both defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Mr. Hall said the attention of the police was drawn to the gift matinees promoted by Mr. Dawe's company bv complaints received. Detectives Brady and Gill ura visited His Majesty's Theatre on June 10 and observed the methods employed, and later obtained statements from both defendants. Since then there had been two further gift matinees. The deteetives, in evidence, described the methods. They said that as each child entered the theatre lie or she was" given a numbered ticket. Towards the end of the show numbers enteral in an exercise book were called out from the stage, and the child whose ticket coiresponded to the number received a prize. In a verbal statement, Mr. Dawe had told them that winning numbers were selected at random, but in a subsequent written statement he said that members of the stall, one at eacli dooi, selected a child who looked poor and needy, noted the number of the tickets issued to such children, and awarded them the gifts. The winners were really picked out as they entered the door. Defendant had said it did not pay the company to make the gifts, which were awarded to make the company popular and the children happy.

After Mr. Eric Edgley, business manager, Mr. John Farrell, of J. C. Williamson' Ltd., and Joseph Shriller had given evidence as to the methods employed, Mr. Conlan submitted that the selection of the children was not decided by chance, but by deliberate choice and that defendant, through his deputies, acted honestly on his own judgment. In dismissing the charge against each "defendant, the magistrate said the evidence he had heard was that the prizes were deliberately selected 01 some quality, cither that the recipient was poor or that lie was a lcgnlai patron. That did not constitute a lottery and was not a distribution dependent upon chance.