THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9156, 13 July 1895, Page 5

THE GAMING AND LOTTERIES ACT.

THE " PRESS " COMPANY. A. tbe Stipeadiaty Majjistrate's Court yeso-rday, before Mr fc£. W. Bishop, S.M., Johu Rii-seli Bruu., publisher of the Weekly Press, was charged, oa the information of Detective Hen ieraou, that on the 27th day of June, 1895, at Christchurch, New Zealand, he ili.i publish in a newspaper ciUed the Weekly Press, an advertisement; inviting persous to take shares in swc-epst'-ikes, lotteries aud schemes for the distribution of prizs money, contrary to „cc. 3, sub-sec. 3, Gaming and Lotteries Act, ISSS. Mr Stringer appeared for the prosecution aud Mr Fisher for the defendant, who denied ttie charge. Mr Stringer said the information was laid under section 3, sub-section 3, of the Gaming and Lotteries Act of 1885. In this section his Worship would notice that the words "such bet, -to.*"* were used. In order to understand that reference had to be made to section 2 (read), which provided agiinst the insertion of any advertisement. The clause was rather involved, but there was no doubt that ib covered the present case, which waa this :—ln the Weekly Press of June 27th was published an advertisement, which it was held constituted a breach of the Act. The advertisement was an invitation from Oxenham's Monster Prize Consultation, Brisbane, Queensland. His Worship would perhaps remember that the Act was passed with a view of suppressing consultations and Bweeps, which had been in vogue up to that time, and it was also an Act providing that no advertisement should be inserted in auy paper containing such invitations as those iv question, and it further provided thab the Postmaster-General could intercept and open letters he reasonably believed were being forwarded to the places indicated by the advertisements. He would ask if his learned friend admitted that the defendant was the publisher of the Weekly Press. Mr Fisher—We admit that. Mr Stringer then called Chief Detective Henderson, who said that his attention was called to the advertisement of OxeuLtam'Monster Prize Consultation produced, which appeared in the Weekly Press of the 27th of June. He had read the advertisement. Mr Stringer—What did you understand from it ? Mr Fisher—l object to the witness putting his construction on the advertisement. The Court would do that. Mr Stringer submitted that if there were any ambiguity aboub the advertisement, he was entitled to call evidence. Mr Bishop said he had not read the advertisement. After reading it he asked Mr Stringer if he thought it was ambiguous ? Mr Stringer ans-vered that he did not. Mr Bishop—We are somewhat prone to look upon these things from the standpoint of men of the world. Mr Stringer said that in case his learned friend was desirous of having the matter tested in the Supreme Court, he (Mr Stringer) thought ib only prudent to call some evidence as to the meaning that would be put upon the advertisement. Mr Bishop—Of course this is a question of fact entirely and not of law 1 Mr Stringer—_Tes. Mr Bishop said that if Mr Stringer thought otherwise he had better say so. Mr Stringer answered that he desired to offer evideuce. x Mr Bishop—lb will go for what it is worth. Mr Fisher said he objected to the evidence being admitted. There might, for instance, be a Society or Club in the community amongst whom a certain sign in the newspaper would be understood by them to be an invitation, yet the publisher, so far as he nan concerned, was quite innocent that it did appear as an invitation. Ib would not be fair to admit such evidence as that, unless ib was shown that the newspaper had knowledge of the meaning of the secret sign. The offence with which the defendant was charged was issuing a letter or advertisement to ail persons which, on the face of it, contained au invitation. Mr Bishop said he should take the evidence a3 proof of what in the witness* mind the advertisement meant. Witness then continued thab afber reading the advertisement he concluded it was an invitation to become a subscriber to a sweep or sweeps on horse raciug for prizes. Ib invited persons to send 5s for certain things and 10s for others. Cross-examined—Subscriptions were invited to be sent to Brisbane, Queensland. He had frequently subscribed to these consultations, but nob to the one under notice. If 5s or 10s was sent a ticket would be received in return, lb was from his knowledge of previous trausactions that he considered this one was an invitation. He had subscribed to otlisrs. Mr Bishop—Not with much luck ? Witness—l have had non-starters. I never had one, with Oxenham. I had with Geo. Adam's Tatteisail's. Mr Stringer said that closed his cass. Mr Fisher said that this alleged breach of the Act was defended as far as the Pkess C.mpany was concerned for the purpose of having a judicial decision upon the question as to what constituted a breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Act. His Worship would pardon him when he said that the Pkess had always taken up the position that whatever the law was people must conform to ib, and his clients had been conspicuous by the attitude they had always adopted in this matter, holding that the law, though it might be offensive and distasteful to the individuals or sections of the community, so long as it was the law must be conformed to. The Press had also impressed that on the people. In defending the case his clients had no desire to evade the law, but desired to abide by ib. They had beeu advised by counsel that the insertion of this j advertisement was not a breach of the Gaming and Lotteries Acts of 1881 or 1835, and it was with the object of getting a judicial determination on this question that he was defending the case. That being so, the position he took up, which he would support by authorities, was that this was no inviting of persons to make or take any share in or in connection with any such bet or wager, sweepstake, lottery or scheme as was prohibited by law. His learned friend had said that the word " such " referred to offences created by Section 2. If they consulted Section 2 it said, " Any person exhibiting or publishing, &c , an advertisement whereby it shall be made to appear that any honse, office, room or place is opened, kept or used for the purpose of making bets or j wagers on any event or contingency of, of relating to, any horse race, &c. It was a well-established proposition in law that one State could nob legislate for another, and New Zealand could not legislate with reference to Queensland, Victoria or other places outside of its own territory. Therefore the Gaming and Lotteries Acts of 1381 and 1835 had no application whatever to sweepstakes or lotteries, or games of chance, or any breach of that Act, which might be committed outside this colony. If this was so, then it was necessary for the purpose of convicting a person under this Act that he should send a letter or telegram or publish an advertisement inviting persons to make or take any share in a sweepstake, lotlery or scheme, conducted in a house, office, room or place that was kept open or used for carrying on such sweepstake, &c, in New Zealand. He submitted that it was quite within the law for persons to publish advertisements in New Zealand papers relating to sweepstakes outside the colony. Doing this had not yet been declared a breach of the law. Under subsection 1, section 3, the attempt was made to extend the law to wagers and bets, and matters of that sorb outside New Zealand, but even then, with reference to that subsection under which his clients were not charged, the word " such" carried them back to the same proposition his learned friend had indicated that ib must be at tha house, &c, kept open for that purpose in New Zealand. If an advertisement were inserted inviting persons to subscribe outside the colony for the purchase of tickets for sweeps conducted inside the colony then an offence would have been committed. It was therefore clear that sub-section 3 of section 3 of the Act of 1885 woald have no application to lotteries, &a, conducted entirely outside the colony. If his Worship would look at <jhe Act he wonld see that the first part referred to gaming houses. On page 50 of the 1881 Act, the Act waa stated to be for the suppression of gaming houses, &c. They must be in j New Zealand. The provision of section 3 of j

the 1885 Act relating to gaming bouses where lotteries, &c., were carried on, would also mean in New Zealaud. It would be possible to say that no person should publish any advertisement relating to any foreign lottery, but it bad not been done. Then under section 4 of the 1385 Act tho letters, -CO., referred to could only mean such as related to contingencies or schemes, Ac, which were rendered unlawful in the colony of New Zealand. The only penalty was that of stopping the letters, but there was no other penalty for sending such letters. He submitted that uo letter could be stopped if it related to foreign sweeps : the clause only referred to events in New Zealand. In. support of his argument he quoted Cox (appellant) v Audrew (respondent). No. 12, Q. 15. Div., page 126. He submitted that the authority was clear and that sub-section 3, section 3, of the Act of 18S5 had to be read with section 2, and that unless the matter persons were invited to take a share in or subscribe to, was a matter conducted in a house or office or place which was rendered illegal uuder section 2, no offence had been committed. Mr Strincer **aid he quite admitted that the New Zealand Parliament could not legislate for outside the colony, but his learned friend wonld admit that it was perfectly justified in providing that no persons in New Zealand should publish advertisements of the kind in question. He also submitted that the case quoted by his learned friend did not quite apply to the circumstances of this case. The clause of the English Act under which tbe decision was given referred to the invitation of any persou making or taking a share in a bet or wager, and the Colonial Act added "sweepstake, lottery, or scheme." He (Mr Stringer) quite admitted that they must look at section 2 to see what lotteries, sweepstakes, or schemes were provided for. His contention was that the Act applied to any sweepstakes or lotteries by which prizes were won on contingencies relating to horseracing. The section, though involved and difficult of interpretation, w*u?, he submitted, intended to apply to lotteries of any sort. Under section 4 there was the provision for 8 topping letters, and under section 7 the exception was put in, allowing small sweepstakes on racecourses where there was nu deduction of money. The intention of the Act was clearly accepted by all the newspapers in the colony since it was passed, until the Press had chosen to raise the question, which had been accepted as the law of the land. There could be no doubt whatever as to the intentions of the Act, Mr Bishop said the section was moat involved. It seemed to him that it was almost impossible in these days to frame an Act that any reasonable being could construe. Hi would consider the point raised and try to draw sufficient out of the section to justify him in arriving at his decision, which he was not then prepared to give. There could be no question about the intention of the Act. The only question he had to decide was whether that intention was expressed in the Act. At the request of Mr Fisher, hi 3 Worship took note of the case of MeNee v Persian Investment Corporation, 44 CD, p. 306. Mr Fisher intimated that he would like his Worship to give his best consideration to the question, as it might involve an appeal to a higher Court.