LOTTERY ESTABLISHED

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 137, 7 December 1926, Page 10

LOTTERY ESTABLISHED

SEQUEL TO ADVERTISING SCHEME.

An advertisement, which was published in the "Evening Post" oh 30th September by Brady and Co., boot and shoe retailers, attracted a crowd of some 500 people to the shop on Ist October. True to the promise of the advertisement, the firm had a number of shoes, boots, and slipners thrown into the crowd, and later eacn person who secured one was given its mate without payment.

As a sequel to the incident, the fivm was charged in the Magistrate's Court recently with establishing a lottery by which prizes were gained by- chance. Keserved judgment in the ease was given to-day by Mr. B. Page, S.M. "Two grounds are taken by counsel for the defendants, namely: (a) That the distribution did not depend wholly upon chance; and (b) that the distribution being an entirely gratuitous one, did not constitute a lottery," said his Worship. "In arguing the first of these grounds, counsel contended that some skill or strength or energy on the part of the various members of the public was a factor in deciding who would be the* recipient of a prize. . . . The primary consideration, however, as to what spot in this big crowd each boot or shoe was to be thrown into depended entirely upon the whim of the person throwing. No one knew where it would be thrown, and no one had the slightest chance of catching it unless it were thrown into his immediate vicinity. So far, therefore, as the members of the public were concerned, the obtaining of each prize was a matter decided entirely by chance." With regard to the second contention, Mr. Page said that he had been unable to find any case in which a charge of conducting a lottery had been dismissed on the ground that tha distribution was a gratuitous one. "The whole undertaking is obviously devised for the purpose of- advertising the defendant's wareß and the defendant's business. ... In the result, I am unable to uphold either of the grounds taken on Tbehalf of the defendants. I think the defendants are shown to have established a lottery or scheme by which prizes were gained by a mode of chance. The defendants must be convicted."

The defendants were also charged with impeding the traffic and causing an obstruction in Willis street. "Looking at the whole of the circumstances I do not regard the breaches of the law as very serious one," concluded his Worship. A fine of £2 and costs was imposed on each charge.'

At the hearing Mr. A. Cousins represented the defendants.