COUPONS IN TEA.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5294, 26 June 1895, Page 3

COUPONS IN TEA.

FINES OF £5 INFLICTED. At the Chrißtchurch Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr H. W. Bi B hon, S.M., George Payling waß charged that " in the months of February, March, April and May, 1895, he did unlawfully e ß tablisb, commence and be a partner in a lottery, to be drawn by lots and by coupons by a certain contrivance, to wit, the distributing by sale of a quantity of parcels of tea, with coupons in certain of such parcels entitling the purchasers thereof to prizes in money of various amounts. Mr Stringer appeared for the Crown, and Mr Kippenberger for the defendant, who admitted the charge. Mr Kippenberger Baid tbe information had evidently been laid nnder Section 18 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881. AccordingtoaHome decision thedefendant, Ji dißtributi ng these coupons, undoubtedly came within the terms of that section of the Aot. The defendant was, however, surprised that he had committed an offence j he had advertised fche fact that he would distribute coupons, and he (Mr Kippenberger) believed that the practice was in vogae throughout the colony; while several of the large merchants at Home aIBO put coupons in their tea. He read an advertisement in the Lyttelton Times which stated that the proprietors of "Bpring Blossom tea," Dunedin, in order to bring their teas before the public, intended holding a tea competition, which would close on Sept. 30, 1895. Money prizea were offered to personß sending in the largest number of coupons. He understood that it was nob the deßire to punish the defendant, bnt to bring the matter under the notice of the pnblic. Mr Stringer Baid theße proceedings had been taken in consequence of some of the small traders representing to the police that some of the tea merchants were oarrying on an illegitimate praotice. The police sought advice, and decided to prosecute. He had been instructed not to pre_e fora heavy penalty, but wanted the public to know that the practice of distributing these coupons was illegal. Mr Kippenberger Baid that a aimiliar information had been laid against George Humphreys and W. T. Charlewood, trading as Fletcher, Humphreys and Co. He ap- i peared in thia caae aiao, and the defendants i would plead guilty to the oharge. They, however, were not aware that they were committing a breach of the law. His Worship Baid that under the Act the defendants were liable to a penalty of _8200 for a first offence, and to imprisonment in addition to a fine, for a second offence. The defendants had certainly been carrying on illegitimate trading, and if necessity arose in the future, he would have to inflict a penalty which would deter people continuing the practice. In the present caseß the defendants would be fined £5 and costs. £2 2s solicitors' fee would be allowed in each case.