Divisional Court Cases
| Published date | 01 October 1946 |
| Date | 01 October 1946 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201834601000404 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
PRIVATE
LOTTERY:
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PROMOTERS
NOT ON
TICKETS
Stacey v. Wilkins
IN
the
Betting
and
Lotteries Act, 1934, there is a
general declaration
(s,
21)
that,
subject to
the
provisions
of
the
Act, " all lotteries are unlawful". Certain lotteries
are in
later
parts
of
the
Act removed from this general
ban,
including"
private
lotteries"
(s. 24).
In
Stacey v.
Wilkins (1946, 1
All
E.R.
293) a lottery, restricted to
members of a branch of
the
British Legion, was promoted
by
the
sports
and
entertainments committee of
the
branch,
who employed
the
first appellant to
print
the
tickets.
The
promoters of
the
lottery
were
stated
on
the
tickets to be
the
sports
and
entertainments committee of
the
branch
and
the
sports secretary, who alone was referred
to
by
name.
The
Divisional Court (Lord Goddard, L.C.].,
Humphreys
and
Henn
Collins
]].)
held
that
the
lottery
was a private
lottery
within
the
definition in s. 24
(1).
Under
subsection
(2)
there are certain conditions which
have to be observed for
the
conduct of a private lottery,
and
one of them,
(d),
is
that:
II
Every ticket shall bear upon
the
face of
it
the
name and address
of each of
the
promoters and a statement of
the
persons to whom the
sale of tickets or chances by
the
promoters is restricted, and a statement
that
no prize won in
the
lottery shall be paid or delivered by
the
pro-
moters to
any
person other
than
the
person to whom
the
winning ticket
or chance was sold by them, and no prize shall be paid or delivered except
in accordance
with
that
statement."
It
was held
that
a
statement
that
the
promoters are
acommittee is not asufficient compliance with
the
section:
II
If
the
promoters were a corporate body, no doubt
it
would be enough to give
the
name of
the
company or other
266
To continue reading
Request your trial