CHANCE OR SKILL?

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 11 February 1933, Page 6

CHANCE OR SKILL?

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS FIRM’S OFFER OF PRIZES FOR CASH DOCKETS QUESTION OF LAW At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday ilr T. E. Maunsell, S.M., gave reserved judgment in favour of defendants in a police case against the firm of W. McKay and Son (Mr W V. Fletcher) who were charged with “agreeing or promising to dispose of £2O by means o; a certain device or contrivance whereby £2O was disposed of by a certain process of lottery or chance.” The charge arose out of a scheme by which the firm offered prizes of £lO, £5 and £3 to customers who returned the largest number of purchase dockets within a given period. In giving his decision His Worship said: — “Defendant company is charged with agreeing or promising to dispose of £2O by means of a certain device or contrivance whereby £2O was disposed of by a certain process of lottery or chance. The facts are not in dispute, the sole question being one of law. The defendant by advertisement invited people to endeavour to win prizes by returning cash, dockets, those returning the largest numbers winning the prizes. The dockets returned were not to be limited to those held by the competitors on their own purchases. They were free to procuie them from other people. “The charge is laid under Section 39 of the Gaming Act, 1908. The offence of conducting a lottery must not be confused with the various offences under the act relating to common gaming houses. In such offences the question is not whether the persons resorting to the alleged gaming house are doing so for the purpose of taking part in a game of chance or a game of skill, but whethei they are participating in any game (even a game of slcill) or other event in which each has a chance of winning or losing money or other valuable property. The object is to prevent the premises becoming a public nuisance. In the case of conducting a lottery the question is whether money or other property is to be disposed of solely by chance,- there being no element of skill, involved. When once the element of skill is introduced, unless, in the words of Lush J. in Scott’s case (1914) 2 K.B. 875 the appeal to skill and merit was a mere blind or cloak to cover up the true nature of the scheme” the scheme is not a lottery. On the evidence for the defence T find that a substantial element ot skill is involved in the defendant s scheme. It called for considerable personal endeavour if any person desired to be successful. The number of dockets collected would increase according to the energy and activity of the competitor and it was open to each competitor to utilise his ingenuity in devising the best means of obtaining the largest number. That being so I think the case indistinguishable from the decision m "Wardell v. McGrath 19 N.Z.L.R-. 114, and other cases cited for the defence in which a somewhat similar scheme was held not to be a lottery as the prizes were not distributed by mere chance. “I have considered the various cases cited bv Detective Sinclair, but, in my opinion, tliev are all distinguishable in that they related to schemes whereby prizes were distributed by mere chance or to offences relating to common gam-ing-houses. “I conclude, therefore, that the defendant’s scheme was not a lottery and the information is accordingly dismissed.”