LUCK OR SKILL?

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19142, 27 October 1927, Page 14

LUCK OR SKILL?

CROSSWORD PUZZLES.

ALLEGED TO BE LOTTERIES. Charges of agisting in the running of a lottery were heard against three City newspapers in the Lower Court yesterday. The prosecution alleged that, by the advertising of certain i rossword puzzles to which there were several alternative solutions, the newspapers committed a breach of the Gaining Act. 31 r H. P. Lawry, S.M., was on the bench and Chici'-Dctective Lewis prosecuted.

Leslie Norman sk-hotield, publisher of Tiib I'i'.K.s-, was charged Unit on Juno 11th he published an advertisement whereby it was made to appear that certain premises were used ior the purpose of a lotteiy or a scheme by which prizes of money were dispose'.i of bv chance. Thomas Edward Robson, publisher of the "Lvttelton Times," was similarly charged, and Arthur David Dunkley, publisher of the "Sun," was similarly charged, tho dates of the alleged offences being .June 11th, August 13th, and September 3rd. Mr K. A. Cuthbert appeared for ■Schoiiekl, Mr J. D. Hutchison for Durikle.v, and Mr Ji H. Uphani for Uobson. Mr Upham .stated that he would like to draw his Worship's attention to the charges, which made it appear -is though the premises were. kept open or used for the .purpose of a lottery Ho suggested that the charges be amended so as to read "taking part in" a game of chance. The charges were amended. Chief-Detective Lewis stated that, in conne?;ion with the charges in respect to August 13th and September 3rd against 31 r Dunkley, a man named Goldhorough had been convicted for running the same puzzles. The crossword puzzle scheme had been instituted by a man named Simmonds, who had left for Australia. Tlie crossword puzzles had been capable of several solutions, and therefore they were lotteries. and when they were advertised the paner printing the advertisements would be taking part in a lottery. Detective-Sergeant J. 8.. Young produced copies of- Tub Phess and • the "Lvttelton Times" dated June 11th and 25th, which papers contained the crosswords. He stated that he had gone carefully into the lliatter of the solutions, of which there were several. He •<quoted! instances in which words could he alternatively used. _Tn three cases there were three possiblo solutions, while in four others there were two. ' The 31agistrate: You don't suggest that the paper offices were being kept open for the purpose of running a lottery? He added that the advertisement informed readers to send their solutions to a P.O. box, which did not constitute a place.. Tlie offence would lio in the advertising of • certain premises. Chief-Detective Lewis: The money was lodged with the editor, and the solutions sent to him. _ The Magistrate: No.- They were sent to a P.O. box. ' Mr Upham: If jour; Worship will look at the Act, he will see that a box d'oes not constitute a .place. •" • Chief-Detective Lewis: Ihe Lyttelton Times" says they are to be lodged with the editor. • * The Magistrate: Yes. But he is not a place. The charge is laid m connexion with "premises," and he certainly is not "premises." . Cliief-Detective Lewis stated tliat sectioh 41 stated "taking part in a lottery," and the definition was used in a very wide sense. , ; ~ Tlie Magistrate: That deals With the taking of money for a lottery, jvhat premises do you suggest were used r Chief-Detective' Lewis : The printing premises were used for publishing the advertisement. , Mr Cuthbert (to- witness): Apart from the question of alternative solutions, do you agree .that it is purely a matter-of skill.. 1 , Witness: If there was only one solution it certainly would be a case or Mr Hutchison stated! that the whole complaint was that there were several solutions. Before knowing that, the puzzles would have to be worked out,; which one could hardly expect the P to Mr Hutchison witness stated that he did not suggest that the publishers knew that there was more than one solution to the puzzle. h Mr Upham .pointed out that where it was left to the discretion of the editor to award the prize, m the event of no correct solution being sent in, it put a different complexiop on the "SSitiv. J- C. copies of the "Sun," dated ]3th, which contained the „ Genu , l °® Sports Puzzle, Nd. 1," and September 3rd which contained the second puzzle and the solution to tho first. He stated that the second; puzzle had wen cancelled on September sth. Iheie had been.sewwnl alternative solutions to the For the defence Mr Cuthbert stated that he would call one witness to prove that the publisher knew nothing of the alternative solutions. . . Frederibk Harold Walls, advertising manager of The Press, stated that the advertisements had been submitted to him, and he had passed them for publication. He was not aware-that there had been alternative solutions to the puzzle. He was familiar with crosswoid puzzles, and he had taken it for granted that it was a matter of skill. Since judgment had been given in Wellington lie had refused to . publish advertisements similar to those before the' Court. ISIr Cuthbert stated that with reference to the actual puzzle itself, his Worship must be satisfied that skill took 110 substantial part in the solution. In the case before the Court, there were several solutions, but skill would l>e required to obtain- one. A clever competitor could work out more thau one solution. The point was whether it was skill or luck that was the deciding feature in the puzzle. The publisher of the paper had no guilty' mind. There had been nothing to make him heliove but that it was a straight test of skill. It could not be suggested that a P.O. box was "premises " Tho whole tenor of the Act was to prevent the publication of the address of any premises where a lottery was being conducted. That was tho mischief that the section -was aimed at. Another suggestion was that the newspaper buildings were being used as premises. Tlie only place indicated in the advertisement was the P.O. box. There was no indication to tlie reader that it was a gamble. By reading the advertisement, lie would think ihafc it was a bona fide puzzle. ■ , Mr_Hutchison stated that he associated himself with all that Mr Cuthbert had said.. There were authorities -which stated that for the puzzzle to be a lottery it must depend entirely on chance. There were several alternative solutions to the puzzles, but before a competitor reached that stage -where lie could obtain several alternative solutions, lie would have to use nothing except skill. The same argument applied to the puzzles that had appeared in the "Sun." He hoped his Worship would take into consideration the high, standard of the newspapers in Nc\Y Zealand. Mr .Uphani submitted that no offence had been - committed as the advertisement did not refer to the premises where tlie lottery was being held. When it was left to the discretion of the

promoter of the puzzle to award the prize, then it "svas. purely skill. The Magistrate: There is an element of luck as to whether a competitor strikes the correct solution. Assuming that no one sends in a correct solution, then it is decided by skill. Cliief-Deteetive Lewis stated that the lottery had commenced when the solution was lodged • with the, editor. The fact that one sent in a correct solution did not affect the point at issue. The Magistrate stated that it-appear-ed ,to him that the case must fail as the premises were~not advertised. He "would look into the matter further.