SKILL OR CHANCE ?

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 229, 27 September 1935, Page 8

SKILL OR CHANCE ?

THEATRE COMPETITION.

LOTTERY CHARGE BROUGHT.

A competition at the Empress Theatre I on August 19, when patrons were invited to estimate the number of persons in the • theatre and win prizes of a total value i of £20, resulted in the police taking • action. This morning the manager and [> upanaging director of Amalgamated - Theatres, Limited, were jointly charged, on summons, in the Police Court, with ; disposing of a pair of blankets, rug, i crockery and other property by lottery >. or chance. Mr. Bartleet represented both defendants, who pleaded not guilty. ' Sub-Inspector Fox said, a maximum penalty of £20 was, provided for such an ofl'cnce; According to an advertisement which appeared in the "Star" on August 19, it was announced that every patron entering the theatre on that night had an equal opportunity of obtaining one of a number of useful articles, such as a pair of blankets, 21-piece tea set, travelling rug, and many other articles. They were required to give the correct or nearest total number of persons in tho theatre. The total value of the prizes offered was £20. No extra charge was made to enter the competition. As each patron entered lie was handed a voting paper containing numbers representing units, tens and hundreds. After the interval tho managing director announced the idea of the competition. He considered that the competition involved skill in estimating the number of persons in the theatre. Three minutes were allowed patrons to calculate and vote. Ihe papers were then collected ami tho results announced. Patrons letamed the butts of their voting papers. "The management arrived at the total number of. persons present from the actual number of tickets sold," said Mr. ox. "We allege this was unfair to the competitors, as some people might have left before the interval, while others might have purchased tickets and. for some reason, never entered the theatre. We also suggest that the prizewinners got their prizes as the result of pure chance. It was impossible to make a correct calculation because of the layout of the theatre. Some uersona were standing and others sitting, and there was no opportunity for competitors to exercise their-judgment." The sub-inspector also said that it was unfair, in the event of a tie to give preference of choice of prize accord mg to priority of identity numbers r \ competition • papers, distributed in numerical order according to order of reservation or purchase of admission tickets. Mr. Bartleet submitted that tho competition was one which really involved skill and therefore was not a' lottery.

| 1 ersons who exercised diligence and entered the theatre first certainly had a better opportunity of winning a prize. Chance was eliminated. Mr. P. K. Hunt, S.M.: A wise man would stand outside, count the people as they went in, and then go in last and vote. (Laughter.) Counsel quoted the case of Hall v. Cox, decided in England in 1SDI), where competitors were asked to estimate the number of births and deaths in London in a week. That was held not to bo a lottery. As a matter of fact, there were 369 people in the Empress Theatre on August 19, and the winner of the first prize was only one out in his- calculation. No less than 30 others were within 27 of the correct number. This showed that skill and judgment was exercised. The competition was quite fair and patrons were invited to be present as scrutineers when the' results were worked out. The magistrate reserved his decision.