JUDGMENT RESERVED

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20330, 13 June 1934, Page 12

JUDGMENT RESERVED

Prosecution Aspvnst Hay’s Limited. CAR OFFERED AS PRIZE. A competition conducted by Hay’s, "Ltd., for the best letter on the theme “ Why Hay’s are forging ahead,” with a Baby Austin car as a prize, resulted in a prosecution under the Gaming Act in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon. Hay’s, Ltd., drapers, of 103-105, Gloucester Street, with James Lawrence Hay cited as managing director, were charged before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M., with a breach of sub-section (c) of Section 41 of the Act. After hearing the facts the Magistrate reserved his decision.

Mr Thomas, who appeared for the defendant, in submitting that the case should be dismissed, declared that if a conviction should be entered the Empire essay competition among schools and various competitions at agricultural and horticultural shows would be affected. The case for the police was conducted by Chief-Detective Dunlop. The text of the charge was as follows: “That Hay’s, Ltd., on April 11 and on dates between April 11 and May 17, at Christchurch, did conduct a scheme whereby a promise was made that an Austin 7 motor-car valued at £299 would be disposed of by a certain d vice, contrary to Section 41 of the Gaming Act, 1908, Sub-section (c). Lottery Clause of Act.

The sub-section under which the charge was laid read as follows: “ Every person who manages or conducts, or assists in managing or conducting, or canvasses for subscribers to, or receives any money or valuable thing for tickets in or for any purpose connected with any such lottery or scheme is liable to a fine rjpt exceeding £2OO, and for any second offence, besides such fine, is liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.”

Chief-Detective Dunlop said that Mr Hay had accepted responsibility for advertisements concerning the competition. On April 11 an advertisement had been published drawing attention to the business of Hay’s, Ltd., and giving notice that an Austin car was to be won by the writer of the letter giving the best reasons “ Why Hay’s are forging ahead.’’ Competitors had to purchase goods to the value of 5s and the sales dockets had to be attached to letters. The car had been placed on exhibition and it was further announced that each week five half-crowms would be awarded to the best letters, the weekly winners to be included in the final test. It was submitted that the scheme came within the section of the Act and that the first question was whether the advertisement could be taken within the meaning of the lottery section of the Act. He contended that people were invited to come in and either by paying cash or purchasing goods take a chance of winning the prize. It was purely a matter of chance as to what strain the letter would be written in. The letters would not be judged on business principles or on literary merit and the question arose as to the merit on which they were to be judged. The object of the persons writing the letters was the chance of winning the prize and not merely to exercise skill. Detective-Sergeant Holmes produced the advertisements referred to and details of the requirements of the competition. He added that he and Detective Thomas had bought goods and had had the scheme explained to them. He had interviewed Mr Hay, who said that the scheme had been in operation for some weeks and had been meeting with a fair response. Mr Hay had also remarked that the final decision as to the best letter would be made by Miss M. G. Havelaar and Mr Heathcote Helmore, highly creditable citizens who had been selected so that there might be no suggestion of favouritism. Advertising Campaign. Addressing the Court, Mr Thomas said that he was going to move that the information be dismissed on the grounds that there was no evidence to support the information laid. The position was that the competition was part of an extensive advertising campaign carried on for some time. Hay’s was a young firm and the scheme was one of the methods of forcing home that the firm was growing. Counsel read a list of reasons received in some of the letters and said that they were certainly ingenious and a great deal of work and thought must have been entailed. The competition was divided into two parts; in the main one for the car Miss Havelaar and Mr Helmore would go through every letter and the weekly prizes were decided after ihe letters received had gone through several hands and eventually reached Mr Hay. There was no question that as far as the competition was concerned it was run on bona fide lines and every letter was checked by three persons in the first case and bv the two judges later on. Every letter therefore, had a chance of success. The onus was on the police to show that there was something else in the competition other than what appeared cn the face of it and that there was a sinister aspect to the scheme. Onus on Prosecution.

The Magistrate declared that where everything about a competition appeared to be bona fide the onus was on the police to show that it was not a bona fide transaction and that it was being conducted as a pure gamble.

Mr Thomas added that his main contention was that the onus lay on the police and that as they had not discharged it the defendant was entitled to the dismissal of the case. It was going to be extraordinary if that was not sound law, for then school essay competitions would be in the same position and everything entered for would be a lottery. Furthermore, every agricultural and horticultural show was faced with the same thing. The Magistrate pointed out that there was no entry fee for the schools essay competition. In conclusion Mr Thomas said that entries for a period <?f seven weeks totalled 132. He thought that if the police had realised the smallness of the entry the position might have been different. If there were so many entries that they could not be properly judged that would have been different. The Magistrate said that there would be no difficulty in the judging. He did not require Mr Hay to give evidence, stating that he had been honest with the detective-sergeant and had given all the details required. Legally speaking the case was a fairly difficult proposition and he would have to take time to consider his decision.