TATTERSALL’S SWEEP

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22545, 12 April 1935, Page 4

TATTERSALL’S SWEEP

PURCHASE OF TICKETS SHOPKEEPERS IN COURT MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION A case of special public interest was heard in the City Police Court before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., yesterday morning, when four shopkeepers were charged with breaches of the Gaming Act with respect to the purchase through them of tickets in Tattersall’s sweepstakes. Similar charges were also preferred against three assistants in the shops of the principal defendants who had actually handled the transactions concerning which the informations were laid. After hearing the evidence of the police and legal agrument by counsel the magistrate reserved his decision.

The four shopkeepers charged were Vivian Simeon Jacobs, Walter Stiglich, William Francis Elliott, and Walter Henry Moloney, each of whom was charged with receiving the sum of six shillings for a ticket in Tattersall’s sweepstake, such sweepstake being a lottery, the prizes in which are distributed by a mode of chance. Gladstone Carroll, Maureen Hutchison, and Eileen Duggan, assistants in three of the shops, were similarly charged. Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for three of the principal defendants, all of whom pleaded not guilty, and Mr J. G. Warrington appeared for the fourth. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr F. B. Adams) appeared for the police. Mr Sinclair intimated that he and Mr Warrington would appear together. On being assured that the facts with regard to the receiving of the money were admitted the magistrate suggested a decision with respect to one case would cover all the others, and it was decided to proceed with the case of Vivian Jacobs alone.

Opening the case for the prosecution, Mr Adams said that the charges were laid under section 41, subsection C, of the Gaming Act. The defendant was charged with receiving the sum of six shillings from a constable for a ticket in Tattersall’s sweep. Questions of law and fact would be presented to the court. The question of law was whether the particular words of the Act applied to the case of a lottery established elsewhere than in New Zealand. He did not propose to discuss this at any length at the moment, but would proceed with the facts which it would be necessary to prove. The question at issue here was whether the scheme —to use a neutral word —was a lottery. There was no question that it was Tattersall’s sweep. A CONSTABLE INVESTS. The facts to be presented to the court would show that Constable Cummings called at Jacobs’s shop and there paid over six shillings for a ticket, receiving as a receipt a small printed slip on which were, to counsel, unintelligible markings. The constable gave an address at Waikaka, in Southland, as the place to which the ticket was to be sent. On the same date he called at three other places, and, leaving a similar name and address at each, ordered three more tickets. In each instance be paid over six shillings, using the names of the “ Good Luck ” and <“ Hard Up ” syndicates. The magistrate: Not very original. Mr Adams: No, sir; hi fl ingenuity evidently failed him. Continuing, Mr Adams said that as a result of the four transactions four postal packets duly arrived at Waikaka. Their contents were evidence against the defendant. In each was a ticket for a Tattersall’s sweep, together with printed ‘‘dodgers" setting out- particulars of these sweeps. Counsel would rely on the wording of the tickets and the “ dodgers ” to show the nature of the transactions. Later four packets containing the results of the sweeps were received at the Waikaka address. These set out the prizes. Mr Adams’s submission was that _ the matter in these packets was sufficient indication of the nature of the transactions, and that TattersalTs operations constituted a sweepstake. , , „ . Constable Cummings was then called, and proceeded to give evidence as to his visit to the Stock Exchange tobacconist's shop (Maloney’s) to purchase a ticket. Mr Sinclair: I formally object, sir. This has nothing to do with the charge against Jacobs. The magistrate: I shall note your objection, Mr Sinclair. Constable Cummings said that he was served by Miss Hutchison in this shop, and went on to refer to the details ot the transaction. He then visited Elliott’s shop in George street and Stiglich's in High street (where he was attended to by Miss Duggan) and Jacobs’s. At the last-named he was handed a small slip as a receipt. There were no other transactions, the constable adding that he had never bought a ticket in Tattersall’s either before or since that day. The magistrate (drily); You’re not bound to incriminate yourself, constable. Mr Sinclair: You have never bought a ticket before or since? The constable: No, Is that why you were selected to make these visits?—l do not know. The magistrate: Is not that a matter for the superintendent of police? DEFENDANT INTERVIEWED.

Detective March said that he and Constble Cummings interviewed the defendant Jacobs, and asked him if he was an agent for Tattersall’s. To this Jacobs replied; “No.” He then invited witness and the constable to an upstairs room to discuss the matter. The detective explained the facts and produced the four tickets, telling him of the application for, and the receipt of, these tickets. He asked Jacobs if he had any explanation to make and mentioned that his was not the only shop they had visited. Jacobs replied: “Well, the matter is more serious for me than the others, and I would like to consult a solicitor before making a statement, and will be guided by his instructions.” The detective asked to see the young man who had attended the constable (Gladstone Carroll), but Jacobs said that he did not wish to bring him into the matter, and added that he would accept responsibility. The detective eaid that he did not think that Jacobs would deny the fact of the slip, and the latter agreed that it could not be denied. Carroll was then called in, and Jacobs said that it would be only fair to tell him that he was not obliged to make a statement. Both declined to make a statement. A WELL-KNOWN SWEEP. Detective Sergeant Doyle said that he was conversant with the operations of this well-known sweep, which was drawn in Hobart. Mr Sinclair: I object to this unless he is going to say that he has been present at a drawing. Mr Adams: I couldn’t hope to prove that. Mr Doyle said that the sweeps were known by common repute throughout New Zealand. The word “Tattersall’s” was not used with any other reference than to this particular sweep in Hobart. To his knowledge it had been in existence for 25 years, but it had actually been in existence for a much longer period than that. Mr Adams: From what sources is your knowledge derived? Mr Doyle: From the mail matter that comes to New Zealand and by common repute. He added that prior to two years ago the sweeps were run on important horse races in Australia, but since then had been conducted on a cash basis without horses, the exception being an annual sweep on the Melbourne _ Cup. Each sweep was made up of 200,000 tickets at 5s each. This applied to all sweeps other than those on horses. According to the pamphlets, the draw in each case took place 24 hours after the closing of the sweep. The tickets cost 5s in Hobart, a price that included a Tasmanian Government tax of 6d. The tickets also cost 5s in New Zealand, plus 4d for postage from Hobart of the ticket and the result slip. This left 8d profit for the seller, lesc, of course, the cost of the remittance of the money to Hobart. There were very few persons in New Zealand who had not received something from Tattersail’s or who were not conversant with its operations. Mr Sinclair: That is speculation.

Mr Adams: I’m afraid that I cannot be excluded from that list. I have received matter myself from Hobart. It went into the waste-paper basket. Mr Sinclair; Are you sure? Mr Doyle added that when a draw took place the 200,000 tickets were represented by marbles numbered from 1 to 200,000. He was not in a position to say exactly how the prizes were determined, but it was commonly known that the winners were found by mode of chance. The first prize, in fact, had been won by New Zealanders on several occasions in the last few years. This closed the case for the prosecution. NO OFFENCE PROVED. Mr Sinclair submitted that there was no offence of the nature alleged. His submission was that it was not an offence to receive money for a lottery conducted outside New Zealand, assuming that the prosecution proved it to be a foreign lottery. A further submission he would mane was that the consultation was not a lottery. The prosecution had produced no evidence to show that it was a lottery, whereas the Gaming Act required a high standard of proof. Counsel quoted the Act to show that it was not an offence to receive money for a lottery promoted outside New Zealand. Another sub-section of the Act made it an offence to sell tickets in a lottery promoted in or out of New Zealand. Had the Legislature intended to make receiving money, for outside lotteries an offence the provision would have been made in that sub-section. Mr Adams: I will make the point that the transaction constitutes a sale. Mr Sinclair: I have authorities U> show that in this case the defendant is merely an agent of the principal and not responsible for sales. Counsel went on to quote authorities to show that the defendant was not guilty of assisting in conducting a lottery promoted outside New Zealand. Sub-section A of the Act. said counsel, referred only to tJie establishment of lotteries in iSew Zealand, and not to any outside the Dominion. The charges laid under Subsection C concerned the management, assisting or conducting of a lottery, and he submitted that the lottery referred to in that section was the same as that referred to in subsection A. It could only be a lottery promoted in New Zealand. These charges could only be brought with respect to lotteries promoted in New Zealand. Subsection B, however, extended the operation of the Act to cover the sale of tickets even in lotteries outside New Zealand. But there was a great difference between selling a ticket and receiving money for a ticket. In this case it wag merely a matter of receiving money in a lottery outside New Zealand, in respect of which the subsection of the Act had nothing to say. He submitted that the construction he placed on the Act was a fair one and, in fact, the right one. Counsel quoted a case in that court in 1913 in which it was held by the magistrate that the charges must fail because he put the same construction on the Act as counsel was now doing. It might be that the Legislative intended something other than what appeared in the Act. It might have been a case of careless draughtsmanship, but there was reason to believe that the law was as stated in the Act, and Mr Jacobs had acted all along on such a belief. Counsel, therefore, contended that the charges must be dismissed. QUESTION OF PROOF.

Mr Warrington, in support of Mr Sinclair, pointed out that if the Act was directed against those who received money it would mean that the principal, tue actual purchaser of the ticket would bo liable to a fine of £lO, whereas his agent, merely for receiving money, he liable to a-fine 20 times as great. That surely was an anomaly never intended oy the Act. Continuing, Mr Warrington said that despite the literature produced and other particulars the Crown had not proved that Tattersall’s sweeps were drawn by chance. Admittedly the man in the street thought it all a question of chance, but was that evidence. Ihe Crown must prove its case to the hilt, and he submitted that it failed to do this, inasmuch as it had produced up direct evidence at all that Tattersall s sweep was a lottery in the meaning of the Act. PROSECUTOR’S REPLY. Mr Adams, referring to the 1913 judgment, quoted by Mr Sinclair, questioned its authority and suggested that there was no appeal against the judgment because the time for an appeal was allowed to expire. Continuing, he said the information relied on certain printed matter which he submitted was evidence against the defendant. Counsel commented on the printed matter produced and endeavoured to show that the literature advertised a sweep or a sweepstake as a gambling transaction. He was required to prove it a lottery, but he was not reouired to show what type of lottery it was. It was a sweep to be drawn and prizes were provided for. For the payment of 5s a ticket-holder was given a chance in the sweepstake. After traversing various documents counsel submitted that they spoke for themselves as evidence of a lottery. The whole system was revealed in so far as the speculator was concerned as a lottery determined entirely by methods of chance. Mr Adams referred to the authority quoted by Mr Sinclair with respect to receiving money as against actually selling tickets, said it dealt with actual agents. In the present case the defendant sold a ticket to the constable, delivery to be made when the money reached Hobart. The defendant did not purport to act for the constable ns his agent, but conducted the sale of a ticket. The New Zealand Legislature was not concerned with overseas lotteries from the point of view of establishment and commencement, but it was concerned with the receipt of money for tickets and the actual sale of tickets in overseas lotteries. The provisions of the Act could not be restricted to New Zealand lotteries only. Failing convictions on the charges already preferred by the police counsel said ho could have amended counts dealing with aiding and abetting a crime as set out in section 64 of the Act.

The magistrate reserved his decision,