MONKEY SWEEPS.

Kumara Times, Issue 2925, 15 March 1886, Page 3

MONKEY SWEEPS.

At the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch, on Thursday last, before R. Beetham, R.M., and R. Western a, J.P., Esqrs., James Andrews and George Smith were charged, under the Police Offences Act, with conducting an illegal game at the Rabbit Island Racecourse on March 5 th. Mr Holmes appeared for defendants. Detective R. Neal deposed that he found the defendants engaged in a game known as “ Monkey sweep.” They had a table on which wrs chained a monkey, and a barrel was fixed on pivots. The defendants sold tickets—three for a Is. When about twelve subscribers were in the pool, a number of marbles corresponding to the number of tickets issued were put in the barrel, and a drawing took place ; the raoukey drew out a marble and (landed it to one of the defendants, who called out “blank” or a number, as the case might be. The subscriber who held a ticket having the number of the marble on it took the pool. No commission was charged, but the defendants asked for something for the monkey. Some of the winners gave a shilling or two, and some did not give anything. Mr Holmes submitted that no offence had been disclosed. This was as much a sweep as was the well-known practice of drawing horses’ mimes out of a hat, and sweeps in which the contribution did not exceed ss, aud the pool, or total £5, had been legalised by the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881, Amendment Act, 1885. Inspector Pender said, under the Police Offences Act it was made penal to use any instrument for the purposes of a game of chance. The instruments in this case were the table, barrel, and maibles. Mr Holmes: The totalisator, with which you do not interfere, is not an “ instrument f’ Inspector Pender; But the totalisator is specially legalised by the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Mr Holmes : Well, the amendment to that Act legalises small sweeps, as I have said, and, so far, over rides the Police Offences Act. The point in reference to this paiticular game has been tried under the Gaming and Lotteries Act at Auckland and Dunedin, and under the Police Offences Act at the Thames. In each case it was pronounced legal. Mr Beetham said that (he Bench were of opinion that the game was a sweep within the meaning of the Act. Information dismissed. The police withdrew similar informs, tions against Allan Cockburn and Win, Hurcornb.