Recent Judicial Decisions

Published date01 April 1931
Date01 April 1931
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X3100400216
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
LOTTERIES
THErecent decision of the Divisional Courtin the case of Challis v. Warrender
and Gordon, reported in 94 Justice of the Peace, page 800, illustrates the
difficulties that arise in lottery cases, and shows the expense and trouble
which may be caused by inferior Courts attempting to distinguish the facts
of one casefrom those of a precisely similar casedecided previously by higher
authority.
In
Challis v. Warrender, the defendants were charged with publishing a
proposal and scheme for the sale of tickets in a lottery.
The
scheme was
described as a Grand National Mutual Subscription
Fund,
and the fund was
to be distributed by the organizers (after deducting promotion expenses) as
to 25 per cent. to the Ellen Terry Memorial Museum, and as to 75 per cent. in
such manner as the organizers deemed fit. Under the scheme, competitors
were required to place in order of merit ten well-known rBles played by the
late Ellen Terry.
'In
arriving at their decision, competitors should place
first that which they consider the general public regard as best, that second
which they consider the general public regard as second best and so on
....
The
order of merit of the respectives relea will be decided on the votes of
the competitors themselves.'
The
Divisional Court held that there was no distinction in principle
between this case and the case of Hobbs v. Ward, reported in 45 Times
Law
Reports, page 365.
In
that case competitors were required to place in order
of merit a large number of different varieties of Spratt's Dog Foods.
It
seems almost certain that those responsible for drawing up the con-
ditions of the Ellen
Terry
competition had carefully considered earlier cases
such as Scott v. The Director
of
Public Prosecutions and
'The
Golden
Ballot'
case,
but
omitted to notice the case of Hobbs v, Ward, and
unfortunately for themselves had drawn up conditions which precisely fitted
those in the latter case.
In
that case the Lord Chief Justice, after pointing
out that the business of the competitors was not to place the articles in their
correct order of intrinsic merit,
but
in their correct order of popularity as
established bygeneral vote, went on to say, '
The
test, therefore, was who
would guess with the least errors the result of all the other guesses made by
persons like himself in this competition.
•.
In
otherwords, the competitors
were to guess what other persons' guesses would be, not upon such a question
as which is the best, not even upon such a question as which two are the
best,
but
how do you conjecture that other persons will conjecture as to the
whole order of popularity.
The
Magistrate, bringing his mind to bear
upon that matter, said that the result of the competition depended entirely
upon chance.
In
my opinion he was entitled so to find.'
The
case was
remitted for the Magistrates to convict.
TOTALISATORS
AT
DOG
TRACKS
A
CASE
is to be stated on the decision of a Stipendiary Magistrate at Liverpool
308

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT