SURPRISE PACKETS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LII, Issue 17079, 7 July 1926, Page 10

SURPRISE PACKETS.

THE AUCKLAND PROSECUTIONS. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND. lasi night. The. manner in which a. Surprise I’aeket scheme for the benefit, of orphans was promoted was commented on in the Police Court, when two charges of disposing of property by means of a. Surprise Packet scheme were brought against Edward John Arlow, and two charges of selling tickets in the scheme were preferred against Hcdlcy Victor Maekay Arlow. Mi. McVeagh. who appeared for both defendants, said it was impossil.de to contend that; the scheme was not a. lottery but it: was the intention of promoters to hand over the whole of the net proceeds for the benefit of orphans. Before commencing the scheme, defendants had telegraphed to the Undcr-Secretury of Internal Affairs asking permission to conduct; the scheme. A reply was received that there was no statutory authority for giving permission for the sale of surprise packets, and ml vising the defendants to consult the pol'ce. Defendants thereupon interviewed the police, who were non-committal. Dei’endanfs then w role to the Rev. Jasper Cabler, asking him if he would undertake to distribute tiny surplus from their ’‘monster” Surprise .(’ticket .scheme, stating that the money would be paid into a trust account. The Rev. Cablet' replied agreeing to undertake the distribution, and the defendants went on with the scheme. At this time, added Mr. McVeagh, there were numerous similar schemes in operation in the city and up prosecutions had been broiighl. Senior Detective Hammond said defendants .were warehousemen and inaugurated the scheme, to dispose of old stocks. Finding there was difficulty in obtaining a permit, they decided to carry on with the scheme and donate the net proceeds to orphans. The scheme was not inaugurated in Ihe first, place for charitable purposes. When Ihe prosecution was brought on June 25, defendants obtained an adjournment, but continued selling tickets until their stocks were sold out. That evening a second charge was, therefore, laid against each defendant. Mr. McVeagh: f have received no instructions from defendants regarding a. second charge. 'l'lie Magistrate (Mr. Boynton) said that, :ts the scheme was conclufled on the day when the first prosecutions were brought, defendants would rci eive the same treatment a-- those already convicted. Both defendants were lined .£1 with costs on each charge.