THE GAME OF PAK-A-POO.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13959, 19 July 1907, Page 8

THE GAME OF PAK-A-POO.

WELLINGTON APPEAL.

(Per United Pbjsss Association.)

WELLINGTON, July 18. Tho nUI bench of the Supremo Court— Justices Dennbton, Chapman, and Button-to-day heard the case Joe Geo v. Williams. This was an appeal from tho judgment of Dr M Arthur, S.M., at Wellington, where a. conviction was recorded against appellant, Joo Gee, a Chinaman, for seilinjr a ticket known as a pak-a-poo tickot, on a ganio of chance. Appellant was fined £100, with £2 13s casta. The information was laj<l under section 18 of "The Gamine-and Lotteries Act, 1881," and oharged appellant with selling a ticket by which prizes wore gaimxl, by a inodo of chance. At the SJ n ' ,IS,'? n , CVJ 'dotioo for informant, Ml- VWford, counsel spr the appellant, contended that the information should be dismiseed on tlio following grounds:—(l) That the information did not state to whom the tioket referred to \yas alleged to have been sold j (2) there was no evidenco that apr.'ollant committed any offence undor section 18, seeing that section 9 of the act declared pak-a-poo to be a gamo of chance and not a lottery, and that, therefore, the information was laid under the wrong section of tho act; (3), there was no proof that any lottery did, in fact, take place, the evidence.only •proving the sale of the tioket; (4) that tho game pak-a-poo ;is not a ttJiemo by which prizes are gained by a mode of chanco within the meaning of act.. The magistrate overruled tlicso objections, and convicted appellant. Ow.ing to somewhat conflicting judgments having been given by Sir Robert Stout, tho Chief Justioe, artd.Mr Jistieo Williams on tho question of playing the game of pals-a-poo, the appeal was argued'before the full Court. Mr Chapman, K.C.. and Mr Wilford appeared for appellant, and Mr Myers for respondent. Mr Chapman, after reading tho evidence Pivon in the Magistrate's Court, contended Ihat tlwro was', no valid ovidonec .given that th.e ticket, sold by the: appellant- was' a ticket sold .in pureuanco of: a scheme to distribute. monoy by chance.. Evidence was given .by. tho respondent Williams, and Detective Kemp as .to the manner in which was'played, but it was.not ovidence of what they had 6een, but only •ovidoneo of what they had been told. It waa heareay ovidence, and should bo excluded by the Court. The Crown had not proved tliat the shilling won by respondent was a prize. They had not proved that. (Mr Justico Dcnniston: What else could it be?) It might be anything, a gift or payment of a loan, and there was no evidence that it was given as a prize. Mr Chapman further oontonded that section 18 of "Tho Gaining and Lotteries Act, 1881,1' was not aimed at, and did not hit the playing of a jamo such'as pak-a-poo, which was specially provided for in section 9 of the act, under, which information oould . iiavo been laid. Tlio ease was unfinished to-day, .