MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10417, 20 July 1895, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

•_: ":.,■■,■•■'•.••' .'■•'.■. . '.FRIDAY, JULY 19. / .;. s ; IBefoi^ MrkH^Carew^ S^AL') v "'■■■■'.' , J.udgmeiitfpr the plaintiff; with costs, was given m each pf the following cages :^-D.I.C; (for whom l ri^sr«£ PP/"^ JoW P?uley (St. Bathabal .fe'^^ forgoods supplied; same y. John M^s (Alexandra), claim £5 7s, goods supplied J«ne Thomson f. Harriet E.Mowison.-In this .preyiously-hßardcaßei .his Worship give judgment ft. V W V ThevPW°tiff, Miss Thomson, was the holder of an admission' ticket (No. 5061) that a Paze, o.a the opening night of the Scotch £ V?wJ di? last- *nd she claims that sh" is entitled to the: third prize in the distribution of the value of £20.' The material portion oFihl adimssion ticket upon ■ which' the claih is based reads thus:-' Grand -union of pictures 50 i& second.pnae, value £25; third prize;- value fv^niJ<S.lQ^ Ve J^ S.Y^ be dr^wn for sach evening a^ 9.45 This ticket entitles the holder to hofd^t^l-^vF*!}.? 1013'8^ also admits the «?I^f- the U-\. Tb« conditions upon which n£ r w^ 61£ beßottea are' ndt "shown on Ikp kf.v and Thomsoa has assumed that the intention was^that the best prizes were to'be tnt F tickert°fn tho *%*■&&■ T>re:is'nothing on Sfl P^Hnrt *Jni te ■?** Vap«ssion. and a little reflection will shpw how; improbable it is that could have been the intention of the The object of the so-called art union w'ai of course, to assist m attracting visitors to the fair not only, on the opening night btit throughout .ths season, and jf the best pictures were ttfbe f'^vf:.?™?,,«« the first' night, amrso on? the attractwn of the lottery would decroase day K/nn^l «?* me the distrib;!^ • m?ht nriS,■th^,? r? gra i P«»e. and rea<ls:thus :- : ht lK E pnzes will be drawn each ■ night each purchaser of a. ticket of admissidn Sg one chance , in. each of these drawing. Three handsome special prpes will be; included. To dispo 88 or these the committee, have decided upon the followmgplan .—On the last night-hurabera Tto 7 L representing, respectively the seven nights of the carnival, will be put in the raffle box. Oue of these/numbers will be drawn; and tha neriona holding the first, second, and third winnW numbers of the night correspon'Jing to tht number drawn, will receive the special prizes' Mr Kennedy, who assisted.:at the fair, has sworn that on the' ppenirfe night-he, announced to the audience . the conditions under which the prizes were-to be drawn, and drew attention to the notice m the programme to the same-effect The •evidence goes to show that those conditions were catTHMiout and that the result of the drawing was to fix the seventh night of the fair as that for which the holders of winning tickets for that night were to-receive the special prizas—thdt is the first, second, and third prizes. Miss Thomson drew no prize on the seventh sight, and it is ncr fectly clear she is not entitled to either of those Erize3. She is entitled*to the prize due to the older pfth'e third winning ticket ou the first or openipg liight. but'not, as she says her friends have persuaded her, to'the third best prize, it is certMnly'a''peculiar part of the scheme: of distribution that pttly the first, second and third prizes were fixed before all the drawings hiid been made it being .left to Miss Mprriso& to allocate all the other prizes after the winning tickets arid their names had been declared..' This was certainly an ill-advised arrangement, but there has been no evidence of any unfairness in carrying it out, orto show that plaintiff is entitled to any other prize than the one.given to her. The case is evidently the outcome of an unfortunate misunderstanding. Judgment for defendant, with costs of court 4", witnesses 15s,'professional costs 21b."