IN THE COURTS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 91, 16 April 1912, Page 5

IN THE COURTS.

(Per Press Association.) Wellington, April 15. A full Court—Justices Williams. Deimiston, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman—sat this mornmg to near th» case of the International Investment Company, Ltd., v. Andrews, an appeal from the decision of Dr. McArthur, convicting the appellant company of an offence under section 41 of the Gaming Act, 1908. The offence consisted of selling to one Harold Peterson, on January 5, 1912, at Wellington, certain meanSj to wit, a premium bond issued by the Municipality of Paris, by which permission was given to the' said Harold Peterson to have an interest in a scheme by which prizes of money were gained by a. mode of chance. The appellant company was fined £SO, and ordered to paj costs. Sir John Findlay, K.J., and Mi Hanna, of Auckland, appeared for tin appellant, and the Solicitor-Generaa for the" respondent. Sir John Fmdlay read an article showing that between 700 and 800 millions of money had been raised on the Continent by mean: of premium bonds. This means of finance was looked upon with special favour in France and Belgium, and also in Italv and Austria. He also referred to an article on the national debt in the ninth volume of the New Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition). Si; John cited authorities in support of the following propositions: Tliat tin scheme is not a lottery, merely because some part of it is determined by lot, and the benefits connected with it are made dependent on chance. If the element of chance was mereh auxiliary to the main object the scheme was not a lottery. It must be shown that the substantial object oi the whole scheme must be a lottery,, in order to bring it within the law. The Solicitor-General, in reply, contended that there was no f.uch principle as that relied on by Sir J. F adlay, and cited authorities on the question. He submitted that, apart from n Star-Bowkett scheme, every scheme is a lottery when an element of chance is inserted as an inducement to people to compote in. the transaction. Argument ivas unfinished when the Court rose. _ Timaru, April !•>. At Fairlie to-day a shearer who left tin Oir.araina station after a rebuke by the overseer for ill-using sheep and demanding, and being paid 75 per cent. ■ of liis wages, sued for £5 odd, balance (ice for work done. Two Justices pave judgment for the defendant, nu the ground that the shearer had broken his contract.