ILLEGAL LOTTERY

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 December 1929, Page 10

ILLEGAL LOTTERY

FIRM’S ADVERTISING SCHEME

An advertising scheme instituted by the firm cost.the Stewart Hardware Ltd., a fine of £2O and costs in.; the Magistrate’s Court, at Wellington, last week, on a charge of having promised to dispose of property by lotteiy oi chance. A plea of guilty was entered by Mi'- W. H. Cunningham, counsel for the defendants. Chief-Detective Lopdell said that the scheme, although illegal, did not.appear to be very obnoxious. The firms publicity officer, with the full knowledge/ and consent of the manage!, instituted and caused Lo be advertised a scheme whereby a promise was made that a refund of 50 per cent, of the purchase price of goods procured on a certain date during November would be made to holders of receipt dockets issued on a day to be known as refund . day.”

To decide the day to,be known as refund day slips of paper, bearing numbers from 1 to 30, with, the exception of ,3, 10, 17 and 24, were folded and placed in a hat'. Each number in the hat represented a business day in November. The manager at.random drew out one slip bearing a number, and without examining the slip placed it inside an envelope and gummed the envelope down. The remaining slips jn the,hat were burned immediately without examination. The number in : the envelope decided which day was to be regarded as refund day, and no person had had any possibility of knowing which, of the 26 numbers referred to was in the envelope. The envelope containing the number was placed in the safe of a bank, with written instructions that it was not to be,opened until December 2, and then in the. presence of a justice of the peace and tbe bank manager.

An elaborate half-page advertisement, drawing attention to the scheme, hag been published, and a copy was gunmied on the front window of the firm’s shop in Courtenay. Place. .Receipt dockets were : given to customers with the following words stamped on by a rubber stamp: “Keep this receipt. To-day may prove to be our half-cash refiipd day. Date published December 2, 1929.” Mr. Cunningham said there appeared to be no doubt that the scheme was in contravention of Section 39 of the Gaining Act. Th© scheme had been born of the enthusiasm of?the. publicity manager. The firin, as a result of the prosecution, was in mid-air. The Act' had been, contravened, but at the sar-j|e time the firm had inade a promise to tho public, and although it wished to do so it might be committing another offence in keeping .faith with the public.

Mr. E. Page, S.M.: I think they can keep faith with the public and take the punishment now for the complete act. I think it unlikely that the police will prosecute the defendants a second time for this action. Mr. Page said it appeared clear to him that the operations of the defendants came within Section 39 of the Gaming Act.