GAMING ACT CHARGE

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27224, 16 December 1953, Page 7

GAMING ACT CHARGE

ALLEGED ILLEGAL LOTTERY

MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, December 15. “I feel it is a breach of the law, but in view of the more or less unreasonable consequences that flow from this minor offence in the gaming world I will reserve judgment to study authorities,” said Mr A. A. McLachlan, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Lower Hutt today, when he was hearing a charge against a shopkeeper of assisting to conduct an illegal lottery. The amount of work done in State departments and other places might be greatly affected by the Court’s decision, said Mr C. A. L. Treadwell, who appeared for the shopkeeper, George Henry Perkinson, of High street, Lower Hutt. Perkinson obliged his customers by keeping the books and acting as banker in a weekly race pool, said Mr Treadwell. As many as 30 to 40 friends put in 2s 6d a week, and if someone scored over a certain number of points on the particular meeting the highest collected the pool. If not, it became a continuing jackpot. The defendant had never won, nor had he ever made any gain. A prosecution concerning this type of offence had never been dared before, said Mr Treadwell. The defendant was most frank and helpful when he was questioned, said Detective-Sergeant C. W. Naylor. The defendant denied that he was bookmaking, and explained how the pool operated. In a statement he said that one of his friends had first suggested the pool, and he had agreed to act as banker and take charge of the money in his dairy and stationery shop. Picks had to be in by 9 p.m. on Friday for the meeting nearest Wellington the next day. For picking a first three points were awarded, for a second two, and for a third one. The witness said the defendant told him that once, when the pool was more than £5O, he suggested that, irrespective of whether a selection reached the required. 15 points, half the pool should go to the highest pick on that occasion. This was done. The witness said the pool had since been closed and the money in it repaid. State Departments To Mr Treadwell the witness said he could not say whether large State departments ran similar pools. He would agree that there was an amount of skill in the picking. Senior-Detective J. J. Murray (prosecuting): It is not denied that there is skill.

Asked whether his complaint abou‘ the defendant came from “certain disgruntled and anonymous writers,” the witness said the information was anonymous.

Mr Treadwell submitted that the pool was one of thousands in New Zealand.' It did not fulfil the requirements of a lottery in the relevant act, because it was not without skill. “This case concerns most eminently respectable people,” he said. “If this activity is outside the law, it goes too far,” he said. Mr Treadwell referred the Court to a number of authorities, and SeniorDetective Murray referred the Court to two large dictionaries, an Oxford ajid a Webster’s, neither of which, he said, made any reference to chance in defining the word “sweepstake.” The winner of a sweepstake was “one who sweeps or takes the whole of the stakes in- a game.” Therefore, he submitted, “sweepstake” correctly came within the category of a lottery under section 44 of the Gaming Act.