SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5349, 29 August 1895, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Thursday, August 29. (Before hia Honor Mr Justice Denniaton.) His Honor sat in Banco at 11 a.m. BRUNT, APPELLANT, V. HKNDBBBON, RESPONDENT. This wbb an appeal from a decision of Mr H. W. Bishop. S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, Christohurcb. Mr Fisher appeared for the appellant, and Mr Stringer for the respondent. The appellant, John Bassell Brunt, is publisher of the Weekly Press, and waa defendant in the matter of an information laid by the respondent, Chief Detective Henderson, alleging tbat he had published in the Weekly Press an advertisement inciting persons to take shares in sweepstakes, lotteries and schemes for the distribution of prizes of money, contrary to Section 3, Sub-section 8, of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1885. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and Mr Bishop, on July 26, 1895, had convicted him and fined him 20s and costs. On the application of defendant the Magistrate stated a case, to the effeot that it had been admitted that the defendant was tbe publisher of the Weekly Press, and that on June 27, 1895, an advertisement of Oxenham's Monster Prize Consultation, Brisbane, Queensland, had been published in the Weekly Press. Chief Detective Henderson, in his evidence, interpreted the advertisement to mean an invitation to become a subscriber to a consultation, sweep or sweeps to be drawn or take place in Queensland on horse racing for prizes ; that it invited personß to send lOs for a ticket on consultation in the Melbourne Cup, and 5s on each of the other races mentioned, and that application was to be made to H. Oxenham, Brisbane, Queensland, but no evidence waa led to ahow that H. Oxenham had any office, house, room, premises or place opened, kept or used by him as a common gaming-house, or for the. purposes of the alleged sweepstakes. It was contended, on behalf of the defendant—* (1) That the advertisement did not invite any person to take shares in any sweepstake, lottery or scheme ; (2) that the advertisement must speak for itself, and that the court could not legally receive evidence to interpret it ; (8) that ChiefDetective Hendereon had no knowledge of or acquaintance with the matters referred to in the advertisement, and that there was no evidence to show that it referred to sweepstakes, lotteries or schemes within the meaning of the Act ; (4) That if the advertisement referred to sweepstakes, lotteries or schemes they were foreign-- to be drawn out of New Zealand, and I therefore were not Bweepstakes, lotteries lor schemes within the meaning of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1885. (5) That unless it appeared or was proved that the Bweepstakes, lotteries or schemes were to be conducted by persons or in a house, office or place in New Zealand, no offence had been committed. (6) That the advertisement did not contain any assurance, undertaking, promise or agreement, express or implied, to pay or give thereafter to or among, any person or persons, by chance or lottery, any money or valuable thing on any event or contingency in consideration of money or valuable things receivod or to be received, or, in other words, that neither a lottery, sweepstakes or Bcheme was indicated in the advertisement. The Magistrate determined that the matters stated afforded no defence to the complaint. The question for the opinion of the Snpreme Court was whether his decision was erroneous in point of law.

Af fer hearing argument, his Honor said he would take time to consider his decision.