LOTTERY TICKETS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10196, 4 July 1911, Page 2

LOTTERY TICKETS.

A TATTERS ALIAS INVESTOR, BEFORE THE COURT. A dispute arising out of the apportionment of the results of an investment in a Tattersall's " consultation " resulted in James Simpson appearing at the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr H. \V. Bishop, S.M., on a charge of having committed a breach of the. Gaming Act in that he had bought tickets in a lottery prohibited by law. • Chief-Detective Bishop stated that the defendant, who resided at Rakaia, and a friend, had sent away money to Tattersall's for four live-shilling tickets. In due time they were informed that they had been fortunate enough to draw a winner, and had received a draft for £IBOO. A dispute had then arisen over the apportionment of the money, and that was how the matter had come into the hands of the police. The Magistrate: "I wonder how many people in Christchurch ought to be here for the same offence. Even some of the police, perhaps." Chief-Detective Bishop said that the police were well aware that large numbers of people in Christchurch bought Tattersall's tickets, but the difficulty was in finding out who they were. The Magistrate remarked that he had seen hundreds of letters in New Zealand which had apparently come from Tattersall's. The accused could well afford to pay a fine if two of them had drawn the sum of £IBOO. The accused, in answer to a question from the Magistrate, stated that he had put the money in a bank on fixed deposit. The Magistrate: "A very wise thing to do." The accused said that the horse he had drawn had run second in its race. The Magistrate remarked that ho supposed the accused's success would serve as an encouragement to numerous others in New Zealand to try their luck. Chief-Detective Bishop «aid that there was not a town in New Zealand that did not draw a prize of some sort every year. People in New Zealand were always winning prizes in Tattersall's lotteries. Of course, any man in New Zealand who sold such tickets was liable to a fine of £2OO, but the difficulty was to prove anything against such a man. The Magistrate inflicted a fine of 40s and costs on the accused, remarking that that amount was a very small corner out of his money. He advised the accused to .take care of the money that he had got in such an illegitimate way. A similar charge, was to have been brought against Leonard C. Smith, Simpson's partner in the deal, but the police evidence was to the effect that he had left the dominion and that the summons had therefore not been served.