( 104 )
1920., RP' SO.rfeut nineteen out of the first twenty members who draw the
Ob sIm*ayo%J$$tjs will have contributed sums ranging from Rs. 2'] 60to
Meedm v.rPeries
Es.- 47"'50only. Similarly, with regard tothe next ten members theywill' have contributed less than Rs. 76 up to the thirtieth month,exbept tbfyjpember who draws the winning ticket in the thirtiethmopth^ Consequently, the thirty members in these two groups,e^ceptthei Justin each group, will draw more than their contributions,and will, thus ym prizes. It was sought to support ,the accused’sacquittal by reference to such English oases as Wallingford v.
. Mutual JSociety,1 but they have no bearing on this ease. -They aredecisions op the application of the English Lottery Acts. One pftheAc£s, pointed out by Wallingford v. Mutual Society {Qwpra)y hasreference to gambling transactions only, apd the pther to persons■lottery• offices.and invited the public to.buy lottery
tic^tsj and the Coiirt held that that particular case did not comeunder either of the Acts. The defendant in that case was a loansociety, registered under the Companies Acts, the object of which
tq, obtain., subscriptions from members, and to lend themmpney/ out of the funds on interest upon * certificates of appro-priari<*Uv s These certificates were documents issued' to' everymembeipn his entering the society. The “appropriations” or^dyances .wm’e made according to the number of certificates held bythe member, and were allotted the first and every fourth one, -freeof.premium or interest, by drawing, while those intermediate wereplotted , to the members tendering the highest premium for theV sanie^ It is* obvious that this is quite different from the schemeip. t]bn present case. Those same English decisions were citedwithout success in the local Full Bench case Sinnaturai v. CMnniah.2This is a strong authority, because there every member of the,cbeetp/club got back all his money and neither more nor less, and. the airguzpent was that under those circumstances there were no.prizes.1 But Hutchinson C.J., who delivered the judgment of the'"Court, observed “ a person who at the beginning of the drawings;(say, at the end pf the first month) gets a sum equivalent tothe wholeof-4he .contributions which he will have to make during the.whole of. the, tphn for which the club is to last, gets a prize .. The
. advantage ^is the use of the getting of the money at the beginning ofthe term’' ., .. . and getting that advantage by means of lots
'you get a prize by the drawing of lots.” And the Court held thatithis was a lottery declared illegal by Ordinance No. 8 of ,1844.
. 'That ;deOiriQn, being that of the Full Bench, is binding upon me,’ hpd’ I fQlJow it all. t$je more readily, because I am in entire accord..with ft. 14 will be observed that in that case the members whosjipuld'dr^w tbe money did not cease to be members, but continuedtp pay their subscription to the end of the term. But ip this casethe ginning members have the further advantage of not paying
-*' j.. * .
MiSiMj 6-4. c. $86.• (1906) 10 N. L. B. 6.
( 105 )
any more subscriptions, and, as I'have shown, they draw morethan their total subscriptions, while even the 120 members, whowould be left after the first thirty members have drawn winningtickets and got the money, would get Es. 75 at the endof the thirtiethmonth, although their total subscriptions during the whole periodwould be Es. 50 only, go that it cannot be said that the memberswould get nothing more or less than their contributions. Tins,therefore, is much more of a lottery than the scheme in Sinnaturai v.Ghinniah (supra) or in the older case, P. C. Colombo, 56,249,1 which,similarly, condemned a cheetu club of the same description as anillegal association falling under the penal provisions of the Ordi-nance No. 8 of 1844.
The order of acquittal is"set aside, and the accused is herebyconvioted on the charges made against him, and is ordered to paya fine of Rs. 50.
Set aside.
Db SampatoJ.
Metdin v.Ptriet