ALLEGED LOTTERY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3764, 4 May 1926, Page 35

ALLEGED LOTTERY.

SOUTHLAND’S MAMMOTH CHEESE. A CHARGE DISMISSED. “In view of the gambling which takes place at the Exhibition, it is not a case in which the susceptibilities of the pubic might be affected,” remarked Mr II W. Bundle, S.M., at the City Police Court on Friday, when he idsmissed a charge against John Elliott Winaloe, commissioner of the Southland Court, at the Exhibition that on April 24 he did manage or conduct a letter whereby cheese containing money was competed for or disposed of by a mode of ohance, contrary to the Gaming Act. Through Mr J. M Gillies, he pleaded guilty. Chief Detective Lewis stated that a cheese had been cut up and it had been advertised that the purchasers had a chance of getting money in the pieces bought. When the sale was advertised, the police had interviewed Mr Winsloe and pointed out to him that he was committing i breach of the Gaming Act and the defendant had stated that if the saje ware not carried out faith with the public would oe broken. He would have to take his chain * and proceed in accordance with tho advertisement. “I can say candidly that the defendant has not personally benefited in the matter,” Mr Lewis said. ‘lt was purely to assist in defraying the costs of the Court.” “This is iust a part of the spirit ruling at the Exhibition at the present time and in the country genera lit, in connection with art uniona*” said Mr Gillies. The Cbiaf Detective's statement was ap-

pvoxnnateiy correct. The cheese weighed about on ton and during its manufacture a committee had placed coma in it. As commissioner of the court, Mr Winsloe had taken change of the cheese and had advertised its sale and that the mammoth cheese would be on view. Orders had been giver for pounds of the cheese long before the defendant had been interviewed by the police. The defendant had decided that he would either have to break faith with the public or throw himself upon the clemency of the court. In any case, it was only a technical breach, Mr Gillies submitted. From the number of cases in relation to lotteries coming before the court in the past few months arising from the Exhibition, he suggested that his Worship would agree with that contention As far ao the defendant was concerned he had no intention of defrauding th public. His conduct was boiw fide and - »onle who had liought 9d worth of cheese might have found a sovereign. His Worship: Has not cheese been sold like c.iat at the winter show? Mr Lewis: I know they have a weightguessing competition but I don’t know about money. Cheese with money in it sold at agricultural and pastoral shows, he understood, were excluded from the Act. “I submit that the position is much better than prolwbly the chance one takes in “Chocolate Alley” said Mr Gillies. The people get cheese at market value for their money and it depended on their luck whether they found £1 or Id.” The •Southland Court was not very strong financially and it would have to pay any penalty imposed, ihere was no swindle and perhaps his Worship could dismiss the charge subject to the court paying the costs. Mr Bundle agreed with Mr Gillies and dismissed the charge.