BOOMING BUSINESS

Taranaki Daily News, 20 January 1923, Page 4

BOOMING BUSINESS

A FIRM’S NOVEL SCHEME. ALLEGED TO BE A LOTTERY, By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. An unusual scheme for a business advertisement Ava* deseribwl at the Magistrate’s Court to-day, when James Hill and Royal Harrell, of the firm of Messrs. Hill, Harrell and Company, clothiers, 'Courtenay Place, appeared before Mr. E. Page, S.M., on charges of establishing a scheme by which prize* were won by chance, and with managing a lottery. There were eight informations against each defendant. The prosecution was conducted by SuhTnspector Cummings and the accused, who pleaded not guilty, were represented by Mr. O. C. Mazengarb. The sub-inspector said the informations were laid under *ection 41 of the Gaming Act. 1908. The facts of the case Avere admitted by counsel for the defendants and the only question which arose Avas as to whether the charges bad been established. Defendant* employed canvassers, who went about to seek clients, and upon 2s being paid gave each person a card. Upon thia card the system wa* explained. The customers each paid 3s 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 10* Avithout further payment. Upon a person having paid instalments totalling £4 10s the equivalent in goode was supplied, and any subscriber could pay the unpaid balance of his £4 10s and collect hi* goods. A subscribe)* who was successful in being chosen could not again be chosen without entering into a fresh contract. The scheme was a very profitable one as far a* the company was concerned. The defendants had some five hundred customers,- from whom about £5O weekly was collected, but there was only one prize of £4 10s worth of goods each week. It took almost a year for the subscriber* to pay the full amount in instalments of 2s ppj week and during this time the de-» fenffants had the use of a considerable amount of money interest free.

Counsel, in defence, said the only queetion .was whether the distribution was by chance. No doubt the clement of chance entered, but 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 agent*, and mere chance, far from being the sole or main factor, played an unimportant part* The defendants, prior to coming to Now Zealand, were each for a period of two years employed in a firm conducting business on exactly similar lines in the Australian States, one as manager in Western Australia and the other as inter-State inspector. Each person so far selected, as a prize winner had been chosen for some snecial reason. The element of chance had not predominated and the aim of the proprietors had been to act fairlv hv their customers and to keep within the la\y.

Deci*ion in the matter was reserved. Tn refusing an application for the suppression of the names of the defendants. the Magistrate said he did not think the system a very satisfactory one, since the defendants had entered into contracts to supoly considerably more goods than they had on hand.