AN ADVERTISING SCHEME

Otago Witness, Issue 3593, 23 January 1923, Page 30

AN ADVERTISING SCHEME

UNUSUAL METHOD EMPLOYED. WELLINGTON, January 19. An unusual scheme of business advertisement was described at the Magistrate's Court to-day when James Hill and Royal Harrell, of the firm of Hill, Harrell, and Co., clothiers in Courtney place, appeared before Mr E. Page, S.M., on charges of establishing a scheme by which prizes were won by chance, and with managing a lottery. There were eight informations against each defendant. The prosecution was conducted by Sub-Inspector Cummings, and the defendants, who pleaded not guilty, were represented by Mr O. C. Mazengarb. The Sub-Inspector said that informations were laid under section 41 of the Gaming Act, 1908. The facts of the case were admitted by counsel for the defendants, and the only question which arose was as to whether the charges had been established. The defendants were employed as canvassers who * went about to seek clients, and upon 2s being paid they gave each person a Card. Upon this card system , it was explained, the customers each paid 2s per week to the defendants, who selected each week from among the customers one person who was entitled to goods to the value of £4 10s without further payment. Upon the person having paid instalments totalling £4 10s the equivalent in goods was supplied, and any subscriber could pay the unpaid balance of his £4 10s and collect his goods. Subscribers who were successful in being chosen could not again be chosen without entering into a fresh contract. The scheme was a very profitable one as far as the company was concerned. The defendants had some 500 customers from whom about £SO weekly was collected, but there was only one prize of £4 10s worth of goods each week. It took almost a year for the subscribers to pay (he full amount in instalments of 2s per week, and during this time the defendants had the use of a considerable amount of money interest free. Counsel for the defendants said the only question was whether the distribution was by chance. No doubt an element of chance entered, but a haphazard selection would not suit the object of the proprietors who. in their own interests, deliberately selected such customers as were likely to prove the best publicity agents. Mere chance, far from being the sole or main factor, played an unimportant" part. The defendants, prior to coming to New' Zealand, were each for a period of two years employed in a firm conducting a business on exactly similar lines in the Australian States—one as manager in Western Australia and the other as an interstate inspector. Each person so far selected as a prize winner had been chosen for some special reason. The element of chance had not predominated, and the aim of the proprietors had been to act fairly by their customers, and to keen within the law. The decision in the matter was reserved. In refusing an application for the suppression of the names of the defendants, the magistrate said he did not think the system was a verv satisfactory one, since the defendants had entered into contracts to supply considerably more goods than they hod on hand.