A SALE ATTRACTION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 15 October 1925, Page 4

A SALE ATTRACTION.

SHOPKEEPER’S GIFT SCHEME. HELD TO BE GAME OF CHANCE. As a result, of the establishment of free gifts \s a» advertising scheme, John Dalgetty, china dealer of High Street, Hawera, was charged at the Magistrate’s Court this morning with running a game of chance. Mr. E. A. Beechey appeared for the defence. In outlining the case, Sergeant Henry stated that at the beginning of October Mr. Dalgetty commenced a special sale of china, and in order to make the sale more attractive he advertised the distribution of free gifts. The method was briefly that in each of his three shop windows, a showcase, and six show tables of stock, an article was selected by a reputable Hawera citizen. If anyone purchased one of the selected articles he would have the amount, paid refunded. The scheme Avas advertised, and later Constables Tocher and Pidgeon interviewed the-de-fendant and informed him he was committing a breach of the Gaming Act. Mr. Dalgetty had expressed surprise, but had been quite frank and explained his method.

Mr. Beechey said that his client had been extremely surprised to learn that he was infringing on the laws. The offence was admitted; but there had been no intention of breaking the law, and the scheme was merely a means of advertisement. It was submitted that the present case was . not the type, qf offence aimed at by the Act, and there was no comparison between the offence and that of keeping a common gaming house.

The Magistrate said he was convinced that there was no intention of breaking the law.

Mr. Beechey then asked that the penalty inflicted be as small as possible. His Worship said that in view of the v publicity of the case, he did not intend to place a heavy penalty on the defendant; but it was remarkable the amount of publicity required to cheek that par* ticular kind of lottery. To his know* • ledge at least six similar cases had been broadcasted throughout New Zealand by the Press Association during the last two years. He admitted that the offence. did not bring about the mischief of the common gaming house, nor was it similar. He declared that the shopkeepers should be thankful that the law did keep lotteries in check. If there was any slackening of the law, the country would be overcome by a whirl of games of chance, and the shopkeepers would be the first to complain. He could not inflict a nominal penalty, noi? could he accept the excuse that the defendant was not familiar with the terms of the Act.

A fine of £3 with se\’en court costs was inflicted.