THE ASSOCIATED SPORTS COMMITTEE'S ART UNION.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 11020, 10 September 1897, Page 2

THE ASSOCIATED SPORTS COMMITTEE'S ART UNION.

PROSECUTION OF THE SECRETARY.

A NOMINAL FINE INFLICTED. L. M. Tadnton, hon. secretary of the recently drawn art union, promoted by the Associated Sports Ground Committee, was charged in the Police Court on F»iday morning that on or about Septembi r 2nd he did establish a scheme by wli h prizes wore drawn for. Mr Samuel, who appeared for defendant, pleaded guilty, but added that he wished to explain the circumstances of the case in order that His Worship could take them into coubideration in inflicting punishment. He had advised his client since the proceedings were taken that joining articles to works of art was a clear breach of the law, but there were circumstances surrounding this case which could be pleaded in mitigation. There was, for instance, no motive of individual gain involved. The art union had been promoted for the excellent and praiseworthy object of establishing a sports ground, and it was right, he maintained, that provision should be made for persons to enjoy healthy recreation in order that they coulc««ieep themselves sound of wind aud body. H proceeded to point out that New Ply mouth had been so consistently canvassed for subscriptions for years that that form of raising money was becoming un popular, aud the promoters of the sports ground had therefore to fall back on some other expedient of raising money. Religious bodies raised money by bazaars, floral fetes, and flower sbo .vs ; and in this instance the promoters decided to raise money by means of an art union. Mr Taunton was tbe hon secretary of the movement, and had been to the personal expense of £38, for which he would not receive a penny recoupment, and had also given three months gratuitous work in furthering the laudable object the promoters had in view. In fact nobody connected with the movement had directly or indirestly received any personal benefit from the Art Union. Attention had been drawn to a recent case in Dunedin, in which the Secretary of a Boating Art Un ; oi had been fined £1, but the cases differed in some material points. In the Dunedin case the police had warned the defendant before the drawing took place, but the defendant decided that he was within his rights, and proceeded with the drawing. Iv the case under notice no such Wcirning had been given, and as this was the first movement of the kind Mr Taunton had been associated with, he could not be classed as a wilful or persisted offender. Again in the Dunedin case the articles for the prizes had been purchased, whereas in the present instance they had been gifts, and no tradesman had made any gain Taking tho whole question into consideration not a sixpence bad been made directly or indirectly by anyone, the object had been a commendable one, and although a breach of the law, the running of similar art unions had been permitted in different parts of the colony for years, and there was a prevalent idea that they wore perfectly legal In the present case the drawing had taken place before Hl3 Worship the Mayor and a select sommittee, and was in every way fair and proper. He submitted the case under all the circumstances would be met by a nominal penalty.

His Worship said that there was no doubt a breach of the law bad been com mHted, but that ho would be justified in taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding the case. These art unions had been permitted so frequently all over the colony that no doubt people thought that they were within their rights in promoting them, audit was only recently that the law was enforced. He thought that it was a pity tint authority was not given to some one to give permission lor the running of such an art union where the object was a laudable one. The Dunedin case differed from the present in the material pcint that the prizes were purchased by the promoters, but in other respects it seemed to be on all fours. His Worship added that the offence carried no stigma with it, as it was simply a statutory offence, but he was bound to inflict a penalty. The defendant would be fined 10s, and costs 7s. His Worship added that he felt it his duty to point out that the penalties provided in the Act ran up to a large sum, and similar offences in the future would be doalt with more severely The Court rose.