ART UNION TICKETS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 29, 3 August 1926, Page 7

ART UNION TICKETS

SALE AFTER CLOSING DATE. A case of unusual interest came before Mr. E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day, when Charles William Matheson pleaded guilty to a charge of counselling Herbert Kortlang in the commission of an offence, namely, the sale of tickets in the "Big Three" art union after the date fixed for the closing of such sale. Chief-Detective Ward said that in November, 1925, the Minister of Internal Affairs granted a license for the art union to be conducted, Mr. Compton, of Auckland, being appointed Dominion secretary and. general organiser, and the defendant provincial organiser. One of the conditions' was that the art union was to be drawn on 31st May. On 22nd May, the Minister communicated with Mr. Compton, pointing out that the advertising posters made no reference to the closing date of the art union. Correspondence ensued, Mr. Compton asking for an extension of the closing date to 7th Juno, and stating that ho had instructed the defendant that no tickets were to be sold after 29th May. The Minister granted the request, but stipulated that no tickets should be sold after 31st May. Mr. Compton advised the Minister that no sales would take place after 31st May, but on that date, the defendant saw Mr. Kortlang, and told him to carry on with the sale of tickets until later on in the week. That was contrary to his instructions from Auckland, and contrary to the conditions of the license. In previous lotteries, where extensions of time had been granted, the sale of tickets had been continued. For the defendant, Mr. J. Skedden said that Matheson was instructed not to sell any tickets after 31st May, but was later informed that an extension would probably be granted, and thought it. would do no harm to continue selling them. It had been the custom in previous aft unions, and no action had been taken. In the present case, all the returns were in in ample time. Counsel asked for a nominal penalty. Mr. Page: "I don't think it is a case for a nominal penalty. The defendant had definite instructions to cease selling, yet he chose to take the chance. He will be fined £10."