Lottery Charge Against Car Firm Fails

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31062, 18 May 1966, Page 7

Lottery Charge Against Car Firm Fails

A charge against Steve Christensen and Company, Ltd., motorvehicle dealer, of establishing an illegal lottery was dismissed by Mr K. H. J. Headifen, S.M., in a reserved decision given in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday.

The charge was heard on May 12. The company, represented by Mr E. O. Sullivan, pleaded not guilty. The Magistrate said that the defendant was charged under section 41a of the Gaming Act, with establishing a scheme by which a prize of a motor car was gained by a mode of chance.

The evidence disclosed that an advertisement was placed in the “Christchurch Star” on December 16, 1965, which read: —“You could win this car!” Then followed a photograph of a Vauxhall Velox car and the words: “Christmas Bonanza, only 18 valuable gifts left including the ‘Jackpot,’ a Vauxhall Velox valued at £2OO, One gift with every car sold. The Velox must be won before Christmas. New stock arriving daily.” This was not denied by the defendant, which admitted that it placed the advertisement in the paper and presented the scheme. The scheme was that every person who bought a car from the defendant company before Christmas, 1965, became entitled to choose a gift These gifts were in Christmas wrapping paper and were exactly the same size and shape, and were Inside the car of which a photograph appeared in the advertisement.

These packages contained gifts of unidentified value, and one of them also contained a voucher which entitled the selector to the ownership of the car. It was not disputed by the defendant that this constituted acquiring ownership by a mode of chance. No element of skill was suggested, the Magistrate said. “Normal Price” On December 22 a Mr Hills bought a car from the defendant company. He paid the normal advertised price. The evidence established that there had been no increase in the price of cars offered for sale as a result of the scheme. Mr Hills knew nothing of the scheme. Having bought his car he was taken to the Vauxhali and shown the gift parcels. He was entitled to choose any one of these. His nine-year-old son chose a parcel, and Mr Hills took the car he had bought and drove home. Later that day, when Mr Hills was at work, his wife opened the gift parcel and found a pair of pliers, a window washer, and a voucher which entitled Mr Hills to become owner of the car. The following day Mr Hills called at the defendant’s yard and took the car. He still owned it. Before this a constable had made inquiries from the principal of the defendant company, who said that before establishing the scheme he had discussed the legality of it with other motor firms. He had been advised that it appeared legal. Earlier Judgment The defence relied on a judgment of Mr Justice Wilson in John Wagstaff, Ltd., v. the Police. This case decided that where prizes were distributed by a mode of chance it was necessary to show that some payment, direct or in-

direct, was made by the competitors for the prizes before an offence against section 41a was complete. His Honour had said: "If no participant risks anything, the protection of the law is not required, and if the proprietor takes nothing from any contestant in connexion with the right to paricipate in the distribution of prizes, he creates no mischief requiring the intervention of the law.”

The prosecution had alleged said the Magistrate, that the general scheme was one which would lure people to the defendant’s premises to buy a car because of the prize that was offered, or because they would have the right to

participate in the chance of acquiring the car. It was conceded that Mr Hills was completely unaware of the scheme throughout the transaction. There was no evidence of any direct payment to participate in the scheme. “Paid Full Price” “This case must turn on I whether the scheme involved an indirect payment,” the Magistrate said. “I find this is not so. The purchaser of the car paid the full price. No sum was added to the selling price of the car in order to participate in the scheme. That means that the defendant took nothing from any contestant whatever in connexion with the right to participate in the draw. Nor am I able to hold on the evidence in front of me that there was any allurement,” the Magistrate said.