PRIZES BY LOTTERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20332, 13 August 1929, Page 11

PRIZES BY LOTTERY.

SCHEME OF ADVERTISING.

FACES MARKED IN PHOTOGRAPH

WELLINGTON FIRM CONVICTED.

[B7 TELEGH AFTT. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Monday.

A charge brought by tho police against James Smith, Limited, of having promised to dispose of a property by a lottery or game of chance was upheld by Mr. E. rage, S.M., in a reserved judgment. Tho facts of the case wf>ro that defendants advertised in a newspaper that they would award £3 in prize money to thoso who were marked in photographs taken each Saturday at Athletic Park. Four photographs of different sections of tho crowd of onlookers at tho park wcro taken and tho firm's • advertising manager selected ono of four pictures and picked out four heads among tho hundred or so in tho picture.

In the following advertisement tho selected photograph with four hcadst marked by a ring round each was published and with it a statement advising tho ringed ones to cut out tho advertisement and apply with it to tho advertising manager,' who would issuo an order fur 15s, which could bo applied in tho purchase of a new suit or a new hat.

Tho grounds taken by counsel for defendants in his answer to the charge wcro: (1) That the selection of tho winners of tho prizos was ■ not decided by chance, but by the deliberate choice of tho defendant's advertising manager; (2) that there were no adventurers in tho alleged lottery or contributors to a fund from which tho prizes wero drawn, and that the distribution was wholly gratuitous and that tho scheme therefore was not a lottery.

Tho magistrate said it was true that some choico was exercised by tho advertising manager, but ho thought that as between thoso competing or eligible for tho prize tho substantial resolt of the alleged choico was that it was determined sololy by chance. Counsel's second ground raised a difficult question. Tho definition of a lottery contained in tho Act was very wido and referred to the disposal of property "whether with or without consideration." In tho present case it was clear that tho distribution was not intended to bo gratuitous. Tt was a method employed by defendants to advertise their goods .and they expected a return in tho way of increased business, and probably got it. "In my opinion," concluded Mr. Page, "the distribution was detailed and not gratuitous, and therefore tho second ground taken by counsel cannot be sustained. Defendants must be convicted,"

The fixing of a penalty was deferred to enablo counsel to consider tho question of an appeal.