THE LEGALITY OF SWEEPS

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5628, 10 March 1879, Page 6

THE LEGALITY OF SWEEPS

!Ut Tblbqeafh J {TIMES’ SPECIAL WISE.] DUNEDIN, Maboh 8. At the City Police Court this morning before Mr I. N. Watt, E.M.. Hjirst Dodson, starter to the Dunedini Jockey Club, and licensee of theßmpiw Hotei, wM oharged on information with being the holder of a publican's license at Dunedin on Bob. |b, ana la such “With permitting Calcutta Sweeps to be played in your house contrary’to tie previsions of Section 38, Licensing GrdinflMr Dennis ton appeared for the defendant, who pleaded “ Not Guilty. , . Inspector Mallard (who conducted the prosecution) said that the question he would Mk the Bench to decide was this : Whether hr permitting what is known as a Calcutta Sweep in his licensed house, defendant had committed a breach of Section 38, Licensing Ordinance, 1866.” . .. Mr Dennieton said that it might -save dime and trouble to the Inspector, if he stated that Mr Dodson was quite prepared to admit all the facto of the ease. These sweeps were; openly and publiolj held in different places in town, and this was simply a teat question as to whether they were legal or not. He wished to meet the police simply as a matter: of law. Mr Dodson held a different opinion from them as to the legality of the -Calcutta Sweeps, but would like to hear the Inspector’s explanation of the modus operand* of the law. Alter evidence had been given, the Magistrate reserved his decision. Alfred Drake and Solomon Collins (of the firm of Drake and Collins, tobacconists) were then charged with having, at Dunedin, on or about Feb. 26, commenced and established a certain unlawful scheme commonly called a ■ sweepstake, contrary to the provisions of section 23 of the Town and Country Police Ordinance, 1862. Mr Deoniston defended in this case also. Inspector Mallard said that in this case he. relied principally for getting a conviction on a. deriaipw by the Judges in the Supreme Court in "Victoria some time since, in Kooey fiing v. Sadler, when it was laid down that “ bene- ■ final interest ” was “interest beyond that of more chance.” ■' The evidence of several of those who had: draw?*, horses and received money in the, “ and connecting defendants . with it, was given. Hi, Worship reserved his decision, the defendant Drake depositing £SO as security for his appearance, together with £lO for the Benevolent Institution.