Two lottery tickets bearing the same number 226022 are in the hands of Judge Wang. Shih-sheng of the First Special istrict Court ip ldeide, wheter the Hat Should award" to each: the $6,000 rarette Company, Tongs! 4
fest prize offered by the concern to Heveubtomers, While the decision wax withheld the judge was Informed that there isa. third ticket bearing the fie, mumper "in the peeesion of achinese lawyer.
The problem was brought to the court "on August 16) by! TTung-tau, a sailor, who claimed thatthe hrm continued to refuse to cath the winning cigarette lottery fleet 220022 issued by the company and hed by him. He charged frauds and asked for $5,000 tung, "manager o im,
and "costs. The. ticket. in "question was submitted to the judge for examination.
According to the defendant 1,- 000,000 lottery tickets had printed by the company, and every Eustomer who presented five empty packets of "Betelnut" cigarettes to The company was entitled to one such ticket. In accordance with the regulations governing the cigarette lottery, the winning numbers of the State Lottery were to be those of the "Betelnut" lottery tickets. prize ticket being 2uieda, the company $000" ast, prise to Gra Wenkians, Poties Constable Gla utiached Yo. 'Central Station, Folder' of the ticket with the corre porate, number, The defendant Hip ngbmited ihe "ket to. the oehce Constable 317, for the de-"for exarninasion,
fence, stated that he' had cashed the first prize through 'a banking name.
The defendant, re-called to the box, stated that' the tickets were issued through the Ya Lung Com.
general managers of the cigarettes. While the cigarette lottery tickets were bein, distributed to customers throug! the exchange shops, the com riy received a letter from possession 8 company but without numbers.
An investigation was immediately started by the company which led to the discovery that about twenty tickets were without numbers, According to the Dah Shing printing shop, Which printed all the cigarette lottery tickets, the tickets were first printed and then the numbers. As the tickets were not completely dry when the numbers were printed on them, it must have happened. that each of the twenty tickets was stuck to other tickets, and the lot was thereby passed without numbers.
This discovery was made by checking carefully through the stubs held by the company, and the ticket held by the plaintiff must be one of the twenty which bore no numbers, the defendant further stated.
Chiang Han-ching, of the printing shop, confirmed the statement. He said' both the tickets bearing the same number 226622 were printed by them, but there was a slight difference in the types used for the numbers. He said he was convinced that the one already shed was the genuine one.
Before the case was adjourned until next Monday for judgment, the defendant made known that a iawyer had also written. to the company, claiming to be holder of another ticket bearing the number 226022, Messrs, Wu Ling-kuan and Chen Chun-ying appeared for the defence, while Mr. Yao Chung-yui represent: ed the plaintiff
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.