Therefore Section 22 (1) (b) of the Betting- and, Lotteries Act, 1934, which deals with the sale of tickets or the advertisement thereof, is applicable to British subjects in Ching, I cannot see that there is anything in Section 22 (1) (c) (i) and Gi) of the Act or in the local circumstances which would prevent the application of those subsections also to British subjects in China. The offences arè so similar to those created by Seetion 22 (1) (b) that it would be absurd. fo decide otherwise.
The learned counsel for the defence then put.forward the interesting submission that the applicability of English law must be subject to local by-laws made, under Article 210 of the China Order-in-Council, 1925. Byelaw. 34 attached to the Shanghai Land Regulations gives power to the Shanghai Municipal Council to lice the sale of lottery tickets thus making lofferies lawful for British subjects.
This question was considered at length by Sir Hiram Wilkinson ju case N. Moalle v. Khoo Ewe Ca. He held that Byelaw 34 not have the effect of making lawful for British subjects that which the laws of England made a serious criminal offence and he observed that the by-law does not purport to make lawful anything which was unlawful before. At that time the eect of the Lotteries Act 1823 was to make the selling of lottery tickets a nuis- ar ance at common law and, therefore, the provisions of Byelaw 40, which expressly declares that the by-laws shall not be construed to make laws ful any, act or omission which would be deemed to be a nuisance at common law, came into operation... Str. Hiram Wilkinson, however, arrived at the same decision by way of consideration of the by-law itself and the circumstances of the case.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.