SALE OF “TATTS” TICKETS

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 17 June 1935, Page 4

SALE OF “TATTS” TICKETS

INTERESTING LAW POINT LEGAL STANDING OF AGENT APPEAL FROM CONVICTION. DUNEDIN, June 15. In the Supreme Court an interesting point of law was argued bearing on the question of whether it is lawful to send money through an agent for a ticket in Tattersall’s consultation. It was stated by counsel for the defence that the point had never been decided by tho Supreme Court of New Zealand, and the country awaited a definite decision on the matter. The case was one in which Vivian S. Jacobs, a. well-known tobacconist, appealed. from a conviction under the Gaming Act, 1908, for the sale of a ticket in Tattersail’s consultation.

Mr F. B. Adams, who appeared for respondent, said that in the lower court the charge had been laid under section 41, subsection 6, of the Gaming Act. After arguing the question of law on the matter, counsel had invited the magistrate to convict on whatever offence in his opinion the facts disclosed, and he had suggested one or two alternatives. The magistrate in his judgment had adopted one of these alternatives, and had convicted accused of selling a ticket. Counsel said that in the present case he proposed to prove the facts, and ask his Honour to convict for whatever offence he found_ jto he disclosed on the facts. Counsel several alternatives on which a conviction might be entered. These included the offence of receiving money for a ticket and the offence of selling a ticket. If the court was not satisfied regarding the sale of a ticket there was the question of disposal of the ticket. There was a further offence of buying a ticket, or alternatively of aiding and abetting the buying of a ticket. 4 The prosecution, said counsel, was an important one, because it raised the question of whether a person who held himself out as a person through whom a ticket could he obtained could be convicted for any offence under the Gaming Act with the possible exception of a charge of keeping a common gaming house. If tho court found that no grounds for a charge were disclosed hy the evidence, it would be possible, unless he were convicted for keeping a common gaming house, for the proprietor of any shop in the Dominion to act in the or arranging for the sale of tickets in Tattersall’s. _ CASE FOR DEFENCE.

Mr J. S. Sinclair, for the defence, said the object of the appeal was to obtain a judicial construction by the court of two important sections in the Gaming Act. The community throughout New Zealand had been in a dilemma as to the intention of the legislation. From the words that were used in sections 41 and 64 of the Act particularly was this the case. With regard to the sending of money to Australia for tickets in Tattersall s, this position arose in respect of two instances —first, when money was sent by a person who himself wanted a ticket, and secondly when money was sent by a third party, as in this case, on behalf of a customer, who paid him a small remuneration for doing so. In 1913 the same thing was before the Magistrate’s Court at Dunedin, and the magistrate then held that what appellant had done in that case was lawful. The present appellant, who was a highly respected citizen, was entitled to accept the magistrate’s decision as a true and correct exposition of the law, more especially as the Crown did not appeal from that decision. Counsel submitted that it had not been established by the evidence that appellant was an agent, for lattersall’s lottery. The Legislature ot New Zealand, he said, could not make it an offence for a person to buy or sell a ticket in Tasmania, therefore, once a person in New Zealand had successfully run the gauntlet by getting money out of New Zealand when he received a ticket, it. was no otfence under the gaining law unless he purchased a ticket m New Zealand, which appellant had not done m tins case Assuming that the court held with counsel that his submissions were correct regarding the right ot any person in New Zealand to s money direct to Tasmania fora< ticket, then the question was: Mas it unlawful to send money through an agent or third party for a + ticket? In nth or words was the agent who actuabsent It an offender? That question had never heen decided by the Supreme Court of New Zedaiid, a ” d the country awaited some definite d pi si on on tli© mutter* The court adjourned until the return of his Honour from the Court of Appeal. .