(Deere nis!) May 10.
A nisi was granted to Mrs. Grace Catherine MacKellar, petition er. against Mr. Patrick John Mac-Kellar, by Judge P, Grant-Jones in HEM. Supreme Court yesterday. The petitioner was represented by Mfr. K.
Newman.
The respondent. it may be recalled, is undergoing a five-year sentence at the Ward Road gaol. having been found guilty of misappropriating funds from the American Ex-Ca, where he was in charge "of the: travel department, HIM. Police Court Contravention of Lotteries Act DR, €. Ws RANKIN' D, NORTIL-CIUNA DATLY
While admitting that he was at a Joss regarding the correct procedure, Mr. Haines thought the section of the law concerned did not operate until 3 conviction had been recorded. Counsel disclosed that the three directors of the defendant company were Messrs. H: E. Morriss, Gordon Morriss and R. W. Davis who, he declared, had announced their intention of assuming full responsibility for evers'~ thing that appeared in the paper. Their nomes, he submitted, should have been included in the summons before they could be penalized.
The full text of the written judgment delivered by Mr. Haines fol-
This is & prosecution under Section 22 (1) (c) (i) and Section 22 (1) (e) {ily of the Betting and Lotteries Act 'The prosecution thas proved that, fon April 2 and 7, 1941, the accused company published inv the "North-Ching Dally, News" an advertisement of a lottery known as the Relief Lottery, Loterie de Bienfaisance S. A. and' that, on April 9.1981. the Accused company published in the' "North-China Daily News" a list of EWS de MORALD LTD, Counsts: Mr, J, R, Jones for defendants. afore Mtr. C. Ht, Haines, H.M. Registrar (Pined Thirty Shillings)
May 8.
Holding that China by; treaty has agreed that British subjects shall be under the Jurisdiction. of English 1aw land that the law to be adminis here is that provided for in China 'Order-In-Council, 1925, and amending Orders-In-Council and that Section 22 GQ) @) of the Betting and Lotteries 'Act, 1994, was applicable to. China, the' Registrar, Mr, C. H. Haines, in HM, Police Court yesterday found the ""North-China Daily News and Herald" guilty on two charges of publishing an. advertisement of the French Relief Lottery and one of publishing a list of its winning tickets, Tu imposing a fine of ten shillings on each charge or 30 shillings altother, equivalent to $110.75 on the Mr, Haines observed that a small ne would meet the case, that nis purpose was merely to record a conviction and the infliction of a fine, as he thought the paper would not. repeat the offence, "Mz. J. R. Jones for the defence immediately gave Doles Of DPE ought on the information. of Dr. Chavles Weight prosecution was brought o1
Ranlds. of the Fundamentalist, Mflssion under the 1994 Betting and Lote teries Act, a greater part of which, according to Mr, Jones in the course of a Iengthy legal argument, was not applicable to. China as it dealt with matters totally unsuitable for local application, in his submission, He contended that the Act as a' whole was not applicable here and that it was doubtful law to apply only a portion of it to China, The Registrar didn't concur with this view and a written judgment mentioned a Supreme Court decision which he stated, made it impossible for him to arrive at any other conclusion.
Counsel In reserving his right of appeal to a full court on any question of Taw arising out of the summary trial, pointed out that it was not merely a question of the applic ability of the Act to China but involved more important and far-reaching principles of law. In the citcumstances, he said, he would advise his clients to appeal.
Mr. Jones explained that the defendant paper had fought. what he described as a test case, from which point of view it may be in the pub-He interest as well ax in the interest of the paper to appeal, since the gistrar had found he was bound by the Supreme Court judgment.
Mr, Haines then pointed out that the defendant paper should pay the court fees incurred by Dr. Rankin, Mr, Jones remarked that he had It is alleged by the prosecution that nets proved amount to an infringement of Section 22 (1) (e) () and (il) of the Betting and Lot. teries Act 1994; that by Section 21 of the said Act all lotteries are declared unlawful; and. that the Relief'
Lottery does not fall within the exgeptions to Section 28 of the said On behalf of the defence it was proved that the Loterie de Bienfal mince S.A. was lawfully establishe in accordance with French law as administered in Shanghai and that the proceeds, after payment of expenses, were used for charitable purposes." Tt was further proved that permission to sell tickets of the lot tery in the International Settlement was granted by the Shanghai Muni cipal Council under Bye-law 34. Tt was also proved that, for the year 1940, the Chinese Government "had. granted permission to sell tickets of the said lottery in areas outside the French Concestion and International Settlement. It was not proved to my ratisfaetion that this permission was renewed by the Chinese Government for the year 1941.
It was submitted by Mr. Jones for the defence that, as the greater part of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1094, deals with matters which make it unsuitable for application in China, the Act as a whole could not be applied in China and that it is doubtful law to apply a portion: only of the Act, Tam unable to accept this view which is contrary to the ruling of the Full Court in the case stated in Rex (SMC) v. CH. Green (UCH. July-
September 1935 p. 236).
Tt was further submitted for the defence that in England it would not, be an offence under the said Act for British subject to publish in a for~ country an advertisement of a lottery which, in that country, is lawful; and that, as a lottery not for gain was not unlawful in Chinese Taw, and, as the said lottery was lawful in accordance with French law in Shanghai, it could not be held that it was an offence in China for a British subject to publish an_adver~ fisement of such a lottery. In support of nis submission coun sel for the defence stated that to hold otherwise would be contrary to the idea that extraterritoriality is derived from the Sovereign of China; (2) contrary. to the right of the Sovereign of China to retain power to legalize or permit any lotteries in (3) contrary to the comity of nations: and
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.