RAT AND MOUSE PUZZLE FOR COURT

Northern Advocate, 2 April 1937, Page 6

RAT AND MOUSE PUZZLE FOR COURT

S.M. Rules That Chance Outweighs Skill Kn Solution

[Special To “Northern Advocate. Q CHRISTCHURCH, This Day.

If you cannot tell the difference between a rat and a mouse, Professor E. Percival, Professor of Biology and Zoology at Canterbury University College, will oblige. Yesterday he was called on to tell Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M., during the hearing of a lottery charge against Charles John Brown, an advertising agent, who denied a charge of establishing a scheme whereby prizes of mpney were gained by a mode of chance. Defendant was convicted and fined £5 and costs. ", Picture Puzzle. The scheme was in the form of a picture puzzle, in which all the letters except one o± a word were given. In place of the other letter was a picture, the initial letter of which formed the missing letter.. Clues were also given for each word. One of the clues was “A bright light,” and the letters were given as follows: “Fla—e ” In the blank space was a picture of a rodent, which the magistrate referred to as a mouse. Appearing for defendant, Mr A. C. Brassington claimed that a skilled man should be able to tell the difference between a rat and a mouse, and Professor Percival was called to give expert evidence. The professor’s explanation was as follows: “When the ear of a mouse is bent over, the tip should cover the eye, but the ear of a rat is shorter in comparison and does not generally reach the eye.” “Definitely a Mouse.” He stated that, by measurement, he had definitely established that the drawing was of a mouse. There was no chance, as the solver of the puzzle, by skill, knowledge or research, could discover the right answer. In answer to Chief Detective W. H. Dunlop, the professor said he would not like to say if a layman would be able to tell what kind of rodent it was Mr Dunlop commented: “I am no expert rat catcher or mouse catcher, but, off hand, I would say it was a rat.” The magistrate said it seemed in the evidence and legal decisions which had been advanced by both sides that chance predominated above all. He was satisfied that he should convict, and defendant was fined as stated.