TATTERSALL’S SWEEPS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3117, 10 December 1913, Page 6

TATTERSALL’S SWEEPS.

CASE DISIMISSED. Mr 11. Y. Widdowson, S.M., delivered Ins reserved judgment in the case of the Bobco v. Joseph Isaacs, on three breaches of the Gaming Act, heard on Wednesday last. He said that the defendant had been charged under throe informations for breaches of section 41 of the Gaming Act of 1903, in that he did on October 10. at Dunedin (1), assist in conducting a lottery; (2) that the did dispose of a ticket giving permission to have an interest in a lottery ; and (3) that he received money (6a) for such ticket. Under a further information he was charged with a. breach of section 4 of the Gaming Act, in that, being the occupkf, he did use his tobacconist shop as a gaming house. The lottery complained of was Tattorsall s (George Adams) monster cash prize consultation on the Melbourne Cup, promoted in Hobart, After reviewing the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Magistrate said he was of opinion that clauses A and C of section 41 referred only to lotteries, etc., promoted in New Zealand. Clause B, however, specially enacted that that particular clause should apply to a lottery whether promoted in New Zealand or elsewhere. The Informations under clause C —those for assisting in conducting a lottery and for receiving money for the ticket—must therefore fail. They must also fail on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction. With regard to the information for disposing of a ticket, it had not been proved thSt the defendant was an agent for Tattersall’s. The ticket cost ss, and the constable who gave evidence stated that the extra Is paid by him was, ho understood, for the defendant’s expenses. It was explained by defendant’s counsel that 4d went for stamp duty on the ticket and postage and 8d for defendant’s commission. That was no doubt the case, but there was no evidence on this point. However, from the evidence given it appeared that the defendant was the purchaser’s agent rather than otherwise. It could not be hold that what had been done in this case amounted to a sale or disposal of the ticket by the defendant. With regard to the fourth charge, that ho was using his shop as a gaming house, to support a conviction under section 4 it had been hold that there must be more than merely one act of user, and this was not shown. All the informations would therefore be dismissed.