PAK-A-PU.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14428, 19 July 1907, Page 4

PAK-A-PU.

[Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, July IS. The full Bench of the Supreme Court —Justices Demiiston, Chapman and Button—to-day heard the case of Joe Geo v. ‘Williams. This mas an appeal from a judgment of Dr M’Arthur, S.M., at Wellington, convicting appellant, Joo Gee, a Chinaman, of soiling a ticket on a game of chance, pak-a-pu. Appellant mas finod .£IOO, with £2 13s costs. Tne information was laid under Section 18 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881, and charged appellant with selling a ticket by which prizes were gained by a mode of chance. At the conclusion of the evidence for the informant Mr Wilford, counsel for appellant, contended that the information should bo dismissed on the following grounds—(l) That the information did not state to whom the ticket referred to was alleged to have been sold; (2) that there was "no evidence that the appellant committed any offence under Section 18, seeing that Section 9 of the Act declares pak-a-pu to bo a game of chance, and not u lottery, and. that, therefore, the information was laid under the wrong section of the Act; (3) that there was no proof that any 7 lottery did, in fact, take place, the evidence only proving the sal© of a ticket ; (4) that the game of pak-a-pu was not a scheme by which prizes were gained .by a mode of chance within the meaning of the Act. The Magistrate overruled these objections and convicted appellant!. Owing to somewhat conflicting judgments having been given by Sir Robert Stout, the Chief Justice, and Mr Justice Williams on the question of playing the game of pak-a-pu, the appeal was argued before the full Court. Mr Chapman, K.C., and Mr Wilford appeared for the appellant, and Mr Myers for the respondent. Mr Chapman, after reading the evidence given in the Magistrate’s Court, contended that there was no valid evidence given that the ticket sold by appellant was a ticket sold in pursuance of a scheme to distribute moneys by chance. The. evidence given by the respondent Williams and another detective, Kemp, as to the manner in which pak-a-pu was played, was not evidence as to what they bad seen, only evidence of what they had been told. It was hearsay evidence, and should be excluded by the Court. The Crown had not proved that the shilling won by respondent was a prize. They had not proved that. Mr Justice Denniston: What eke could it be?

Mr Chapman.: It might be anything, a gift or payment of a loan, and there was no evidence that it was given, as a prize. Mr Chapman further contended that Section 18 of the Gaming -and Lotteries Act. 1881, was not aimed at, and did not hit the playing of a game such as pak-a-pu, which was specifically pro-

vidod for in Section 9 of the Act, un*» der which the information could IxavS been laid. The case was unfinished to-day..