CONVICTION OF A "CONSULTATION" PROMOTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7787, 5 November 1886, Page 5

CONVICTION OF A "CONSULTATION" PROMOTER.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.) Ohbistohurch, Thursday. The police have at last come down upon the promoters of a consultation, the existence of whioh was by no means a secret here. Jubal Fleming, it ia believed, obtained a number of subscribers to his " Robin Hood No. 8 Sydney programme on the M elbourne and New Zealand Cups,' , and it ia certain he obtained one subscriber too many.. On October 27 laat a man called at his shop and paid £1 for two tickets, giving his name and address as William Willis, Coalgate. Fleming told him he could not have the tickets, as it was against the law, but he would post them. The purchaser probably knew as muoh about the law as Mr. Fleming, as he was a policeman in plain clothes, but being statioued at an out of the way place like Coalgate was not known to him. On the following morning the constable called at the Coalgate Post Office and received a letter directed to Mr. Willis, the nom de plume nnder which he had appeared before Mr. Fleming. The letter which was opened in the presence of the postmaster contained two tickets for the Melbourne and New Zealand Cups, a programme with Fleming's name attached, and a form of applications for tickets. The matter formed the subject of three informations at the Magistrate's Court this morning, in whioh Fleming was charged with selling the tickets and conducting a certain scheme by which money prizes are drawn for by a mode of chance, contrary to the Gaming and Lotteries Act. Mr. J. B. Fisher, counsel for Fleming, tried to disoredit the constable's statement, because he had given a false name when buying the tickets. He also contended that no offence had occurred because the drawing had not taken place. Chief Detective Neil partially corroborated the constable's statement. Mr. Beetham, R.M., said that he had followed the evidence and Mr. Fisher's contention very closely, and, according to the Act, no one could be more completely in its toils than was Mr. Fleming. The scheme put forward by the programme was to the effect that prizes were to be gained, and that each ticket possessed three ohanoes. The programme gave a Hat of those who won on the laet drawing. It did not give the names, bat stated their occupations. Mr. Fisher a»kod for the infliction of a nominal fine, as this wae the first case brought forward under the new Aot, and it had been generally understood that the act was a deadlatter in the Australian colonies. The police bad failed to obtain convictions under a similar Aot. His Worship could not inflict s. nominal penalty. The maximum penalty fired by the Act waa £200, in addition to two monthe' imprisonment, with or without hard labour. The accused would be fined £100, with the first two charges taken collectively for the purposes of the penalty, and 20a on the third charge. The constable was in no way to blame, only having obeyed the instructions of his superior officer. Had a private individual laid the information he would have allowed him half the fine.