RAFFLING EXHIBITS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19349, 9 December 1924, Page 8

RAFFLING EXHIBITS.

AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION CHARGED. INFORMATION DISMISSED. (From Our Own Correspondent.) WANGANUI, December 8. Charges against the Wanganui Agricultural Association (incorporated) and Guy S. Vance, executive officer, for having committed breaches of the Gaming Act during the recent queen carnival occupied the attention of the court to-day. A good deal of evidence was adduced showing that raffles were held on the occasion of the recent queen carnival for the purpose of raising money to purchase a new show ground. Mr. Cohen, for the defence, said it was interesting to realise that section 43 of the Gaming Act had been enforced m every Statute since 1881. Whatever was the policy of the Gaming Act, that policy was not to stop gaming or gambling, for it authorised gaming on the totalisator and a licensed club. Why was it that in relation to lotteries there were two exceptions? Section 42 was a faint approval of artistic pursuits, —“perhaps,” added counsel,” in the way of encouraging art.” Continuing Mr Cohen referred to the words in the section “any association formed for the purpose of promoting agriculture or horticulture.” He claimed that for many years the Wanganui Agricultural Association had promoted agriculture. The word agriculture had to be used in its widest sense, embracing everything relating to the produce of the land and derived from the land. The courts had given the widest interpretation to the words of the Statutes relating to the poor and to education and religious organisations The defendants claimed that under the section they could dispose of any specimen at any show, and that this was a show under the control of the association. All it had to do was to prove that the show was under its control. It was not for the court to say whether the show should have been held, or the kind of show, so long as it was a show to promote agriculture. If legislation gave a larger measure of freedom to the words than was intended it was not for tHe court to whittle down that meaning. If he were to invoke a benevolent construction he would point out that the matter of development was one of national benefit and for individual gain. The point before the court had not been previously decided. He submitted that the association held a show, and passed a resolution of incorporation that it was a show. Exhibits were invited and awards were given for the best exhibits of the four queen carnival committees. Anything on those stalls was an exhibit at the show. Referring to the word “specimen,’’ Mr Cohen claimed that a specimen was an exhibit. It must moan something to be looked at. It would be proved that everything at the show was an exhibit for competitive purposes. Mr Cohen submitted that as lon* as the association had brought itself within the power given by Section 43, it was not for the court to consider any other matter, but for the Legislature to do so. If tire Legislature had given wider powers than was intended it was for the Legislature to deal with the matter. The privilege was one emerging from the Statute, which was full of prohibitions. Until it was limited full play of its language must be permitted. A considerable amount of evidence was given for the defence, after which his Worship dismissed the information against the Agricultural Association and convicted M. K. Vance, the costs to be paid by the latter in respect to the charges preferred against him.

The old spelling of Shrewsbury was Scrobbosbury, meaning the burgh, or castle, among the shrubs. The nearest the Normans could come in pronunciation to Scrobbesbury was Salopcabury. Then bury was dropped and Salop became the short name for Shropshire.