LEGALITY OF SWEEPS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 2980, 13 January 1881, Page 3

LEGALITY OF SWEEPS.

(From The Argus, December 14.)

Ad action was tried in the County Court yesterday before Judge Cope, which is of interest to persons taking part in " sweeps" on events at races. Mr W. Jones, a broker at Ballarat, sued Mr Thomas Asche, a publican in Melbourne, to recover £85, the first prize in a sweep on the last Melbourne Cup. A " sweep" of £5 from each shareholder was got up on the racecourse for the Cup, the amount to be given the first horse being £85. Mr Asche was the stakeholder. The sweep was drawn, and Mr Jones drew Grand Flaneur, who won the race. Mr .Tones applied for the £85, tbe amount of the first prize, but Mr Asche proposed to deduct a sum of about £24, which he said that Mr Jones had previously owed him. Mr Jones denied that he owed the defendant any money, and he declined to receive the amount tendered. The action was then brought. The defendant pleaded illegality. The only witness examined was the plaintiff who gave evidence to the effect stated. It was then contended by Mr Quinlan, for the defe; \.nt, that the plaintiff ought to be nonsu : ted, as the transaction was illegal, because by the Police Offences Act Amendment Act, No. 533, sec. 6, it was provided that if any person shall establish, commence or be a partner, any lottery or any scheme by which prizes are gained he ia liable to a penalty. It was urged that this was a lottery, and was therefore illegal, and no one who took part in it could recover even tbe stake he had paid in. On the other hand it was submitted for the plaintiff tbat this was not a lottery within the meaning of the section ; that the section expressly provided that the provision Bhould not apply to a " raffle of a private nature," and this was a raffle of that kind, and that the Act did not apply to distribution of property amongst the owners of it. It was also submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to £52, which defendant's attorney had offered to pay, or at all events to his £5, which he had paid. His Honor said he was of opinion that the action could not be sustained lor any part of the plaintiff's claim. The Act imposed a penalty on any person who took part in a lottery, and he tbought this sweep came within the term, and therefore that the plaintiff could not be heard in Court at all. He, therefore, nonsuited the plaintiff. Mr Walsh asked that no costs should be piven, as the defendant ought to at least have paid into Court the £52 he admitted the plaintiff was entitled to, and the merits were all on tbe plaintiff's side. His Honor said be could not sympathise with " sweeps;" he was bound by the Act of Parliament. He awarded the defendant his coats. Mr Walsh asked if he would direct a prosecution under the statute, but His Honor declined to do so. Execution for costs was stayed for a week, in order to give the plaintiff time to appeal.