SLOT MACHINES.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19724, 14 September 1929, Page 9

SLOT MACHINES.

A OUNEOIN PROSECUTION. [THE PEESS Special Service.] DUNEUIN, September 13. More about the placing of automatic selling machines in public streets was heard in the Magistrate's Court this morning, when Hugh and G. K. Neil' Ltd., were charged with exposing goods for oale on a Sunday, and also with selling goods on Sunday. Mr P S. Anderson appeared for defendants, who pleaded not guilty. Sub-Inspector Cummings said that the charge concerned slot machines in the street near the Stock Exchange, and he quoted a number of legal authorities in connexion with the cuso. Sergeant . McCarthy said that on Sunday, June 30th.* at 10 a.m., hewent to the automatic film machine, where on placing one shilling and two pt'iiuies in the respective slots he obtained a film, which he produced. At 11 a.m. he went to the machine ; a■g«' n with a constable. He put a shilling and sixpence into the machtt«% br-t could not get a film. He did not £ fct his. money back. The machine was available for use at anv time on any dav. To Mr Anderson, witness said he went to the machine acting under instructions. He was not attracted by the display of films. He saw no one working about the machine on the

Sunday. He had not applied for a refund of his money. Sergeant Vaughan said at 10.35 a.m. on Sunday, June 30th, he also obtained a film by inserting a shilling and two pennies in the machine. He, too, put a shilling and a- sixpence into the machine hut got no return. ' ''That shows the danger of Sunday trading,'' said the Magistrate. Mr Anderson said he admitted that the sergeants' evidence was correct, and that they did obtain films from the machine. He did not deny from the fact that the films were obtained *nd that trading was done. The whole ptnnt was that if there was no human labour involved in connexion with the machine on a Sundav there was uo offence disclosed. The sub-inspector admitted that he was unable to show that the machines »r reC * ClTO on a Sunday Mr Anderson further contended that t.iere was no evidence of exposure before the Court, and that that charge must b* dismissed. Decision was reserved.