AN ALLEGED LOTTERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18461, 26 July 1923, Page 4

AN ALLEGED LOTTERY.

... . /-.""V - PICTURE THEATRE SCHEME. - ... ■ \ .• CERTIFICATES : OF VALUE. SEARCH FOR THE HOLDERS. An interesting prosecution arising from an advertising scheme in connection with a picture screened, in Auckland ' recently came before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday. R. A, Cleland (Mr. R. McVeagh), manager of the National Picture Theatre, was oharged with having, on May 31, disposed of 12 gifts of money, . ranging from £20 to £1, by means of a game of chance, consisting of " picking 12 men with certificates of the various amounts, and saying 4 Do you bear a certificate for the Count of Monte Cristo.' " Defendant pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Rawle, who conducted the prosecution, said the information was laid under section 39 of the Gaming Act, which defined lotteries. He produced newspapers containing advertisements,: inserted by the theatre management, regarding the scheme. The first advertisement, inserted on May 30, stated that £50 in cash was to be absolutely given away the next day; it cost nothing, anyone might win a certificate of value. The advertisement stated that 13 well ; known gentlemen of undoubted integrity", who would each bear one certificate, would be within a radius the 100 yards of the entrance of the theatre, between 1 p.m. and 1-30 p.m. On any one of the 1?. being asked, 'Do yon bear a certificate for the Count of Monte Cristo?' he would surrender a sealed envelope, containing a certificate, on presentation of which the " Count of Monte Cristo," whose carriage was drawn up at the entrance, would pay the amount inscribed thereon.

• The facts were admitted. ' The senior-sergeant quoted authorities j to support his contention that the scheme constituted a lottery, and that it was not necessary. that there should be a contribution . by competitors •to bring a scheme within the scope of the Act. Mr. McYeagh said the competition was open to all; nothing had to be paid; competitors did not have to have a ticket or to go into the theatre—the competition was quite unconditional. He added that 11 of the 12 ' certificates were actually gained by < members of the public; three were obtained by one woman, showing that the result was one of industry, not of chance. He submitted that in no sense could this scheme be held a lottery, the grounds being that it was ?not within the mischief the Act was designed to prevent; that it involved industry, not just chance, and So fell within a welldefined class, and was not within the definition of a lottery; and that it was, a gift scheme and not a lottery. Counsel said the scheme did not subtract from the public a single penny, and did not induce them to spend one penr.y. , He said he had been unable to find 4 single case in which a scheme was held to be a lottery where competitors did not i have to make a contribution in money or kind. There • was a very important element of success dependent upon the competitors'' industry, and so that took it out of the definition of lotteries. Counsel quoted " numerous authorities to support his case." .• Senor-Sergcant Rawle said that so far as could be seen no case of exactly similar nature had been presented ■ before. He oould only submit that it was not necessary for there to be a contributor to constitute a lottery. The magistrate said it was an interesting case, and reserved his decision.-

CROWDS OBSTRUCT FOOTPATH. MANAGER FINED FIVE " POUNDS. > A plea of gailty was entered by R. A. Cleland, manager of the National Theatre, and four employees, A. Bestic, A. McGowan, A. O'Hare, and G. Torr .to; charges under the city - by-laws, of having obstructed traffic in Queen Street. The cases arose fro® the same scheme• as in the above case. The senior-sergeant said that at 1.10 p.m. on May 31, there -was a large crowd Of people in front of the entrance to the theatre, completely block-' ing the traffic. Three of the emplovciss j were is an open carriage in fancy dress. The block was not cleared till 1.35 p.m. On June 1, another large crowd collected, and continued to block traffic on the footpath till 1.30 'p.m. It was almost impossible to pass. ' T- '* Mr. McVeaph, who appeared for the defendants, sand the National Theatre would undertake : full responsibility for spy - fines inflicted. An endeavour had been made to keep the footpath . clear, but the crowd had got beyond control. • •' - Mr. Poynton said he was satisfied the penalty should fall on the employer! and not on the employees. The former had trot more advertisement from the scheme than the penalty would amount to. .The manager vrwr fined £5 and lis costs, and the four employees and; another, V. F. Roberts, who had previously 'pleaded guilty, were ordered to pay oosts.