Now in the ordinary course my Anéing in favour of the modification 2nd: September would dispose of the case, There is, however, the fur~ ther consideration that the original contract between the parties was apparently illegal under the Lotteries Acts. The word "Lots" in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim denotes prizes in a lottery; there was thus an Megality upon the face of -the contract of which the Court was bound to take note whether the parties pleaded the illegality or'not (North-Western Salt Ca. v. Electrolytic Alkali Ca., 1913, 3.K.B, 422 C.A.), "For although in general the agreements into which parties enter have the force of laws over those parties on the principle that modus et convention vineunt legem, yet this rule does cot apply where the interests of the public or of morality are affected by the agreement and may be injured by the observance of {ts provisions." (Chitty on Contracts, 11th Ed, p. 743).
'The tale of the Lotteries Acts from the Statute (1698) 10 Will. 3 ¢. 23 to the Betting "and Lotteries Act, 1934, makes it abundantly clear that' for centuries the law of Eng steadfastly set its foi ries of both native and foreign protenance, Section 21 of the last Act declares all lotteries unlawful sub-ect to the provisions of Part If of the Act, and by section 22 (1) "every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to be Promoted cither in Great Britain or elsewhere (a) prints any tlekels for use in the lottery or (b) sells or distributes, or offers or advertises for sale or distribution, any tickets or chances in the lottery......shall be guilty of an offence." in 8.26 (1) "Ucket" is defined as including "any document evidencing the claim of a person to participate in the chances of the lottery." By 3.29 "where a person convicted of an offence under this Act is a body corporate, every person who at the date of the commission of the offence was a director or officer of the body corporate shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge." Persons who aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of an offence are themselves guilty of an offence Summary Jurisdietion Act, 1848, $5. In Barratt Burden (1893, 62 L. J. 33) a wholesale dealer who pressed his goods upon 4 retailer, some of such goods con-{aining money prizes, with a, view to resale to the public, was convicted ender this section, The case of In re The International Securities Corporation Ltd, (1008, 24 TLR, 637) makes It equally clear that "premium bonds" are within the ambit of the Lottery Acts, In the course of his judgment on the Petition for compulsory winding-up of the company Mr. Justice Swinfen Eady said: "The petition sets forth that the company deals in lottery bonds and that its only "business consists in inducing persons to take these bonds by either purchasing them outright or paying for them by instalments, on payment of the first of which' they are to become entitled to the benefit of drawings -.-. The chief attraction held out is that by making small payments the customers will stand to win large sums....it is obvious that the attraction lies in the turn of fortune's wheel. Now, the question is: Is this a- dealing in contravention of the Lottery Acts? It was formerly argued that where there are all prizes and no blanks there can be lottery, and in this cate it is suggested that since the bonds must my opinion, this is not so, for every year there must be drawings where blanks are drawn and mo. prizes, though ultimately the bonds may be Srawn, That argument was used in Taylor v. Smetten (1683 11 QBD, 207, 210), where in all, packets of tea' sold were placed coupons of varying value, and the Court. upheld a conviction, Mr. Justice Hawkins quoting with "approval the definition in Webster's and Johnson's dictionaries of a lottery og a. "di {tribution of prizes by lot or chane Every one of the packets contained, indeed, one prize, and there were no blanks, but there was the chance as to what the value of the prize would be. With that judgment Mr. Justice Stirling, in the "missing word" case, Barclay v. Pearson (1893 2 Eh,' 164: 9 The Times LR, 260), entirely agreed, and the cision in the "limerick competition" ase, Blu", Hulton and Company was' on the same principle, T have no diMeulty whatever In at the conclusion that the premium bonds are within th tery Acts, and that the dealing in them as carried on by the company illegal busin
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.