APPEAL COURT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LX, Issue 143767, 16 April 1912, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

A TARANAKI CASE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON. April 16. . In the Court of Appeal before Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, and Justices Sir J. Williams, Donniston, Edwards, Cooper and Chapman further argument was heard in the case Schmidt and Bellshaw v. Greenwood case, which was partly argued in October, 1911. The appeal is from the judgment of Mr. Justice Edwards giving damages to respondent for a deficiency in grassed land in the Bale of a farm (a lease with right of purchase) containing 1022 acres in the Mimi Surveys District. It was alleged that the apA pedants represented the a—. of grassed land as 122 acres, and that only 45 were under grass. Mr. Justice Edwards found for respondent on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court of Appeal reversed the finding of fraud, but reserved the question as to whether respondent was entitled to relief on the ground either,,of breach of .warranty or innocent misrepresentation as to the area of grassed laud. Mr.. Bell, K.C., and Mr. Quiliiam appear for ap-, pedants and Mr. Chapman, K.C., and Mr. Spence for respondent. Argument is proceeding. PREMIUM BONDS CASE. WELLINGTON, April 15. A full court, Justices Williams, Denniston, Edwards, Cooper and Chapman, sat this morning to hear the case of the International investment Company, Ltd., v. Andrews, an appeal from the decision of Dr. M'Arthur, 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 means, 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 pay costs. Sir John Eindlay, K.C., and Mr. Hanna, of Auckland, appeared for the appellant, and the Solicitor-General for the respondent. Sir John Findlay read an article showing that between 700 and 800 millions of money had been raised on the Continent by means of premium bonds. This means of finance was looked upon with special favour in France and Belgium, and also in Italy and Austria. He also referred to an article on the national debt in the ninth volume of the New Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition). Sir John cited authorities in support of the following propositions: That the 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 merely auxiliary to the main object the scheme was not a lottery. It must be shown that the substantial object of the whole scheme must bo a lottery, in order to bring it within the law. The Solicitor-General, in reply, contended that there was no such principle as that relied on by Sir John Findlay, and cited authorities on the question. ■ He submitted that, apart from a StarBowkett Scjieme, every scheme is a lottery when an element of chance is inserted as an inducement to people to compete in the transaction. Argument was unfinished when the court rose. JUDGMENT RESERVED. WELLINGTON, April 16. The Court of Appeal, after hearing argument, reserved its judgment in the appeal of the International Investment Company from the decision of Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., in which a fine of £SO was. inflicted for a breach of the Gaming Act.