ALLEGED TRESPASSES ON A RACECOURSE.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9814, 25 August 1897, Page 6

ALLEGED TRESPASSES ON A RACECOURSE.

At the Magistrate's Court, yesterday, before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M., eightteen persons were charged with trespassing on the Canterbury Trotting Club's Ground, Addington, during races held by the Club on August 10th and 13th. Mr Cresswell appeared for the Club. The first case taken was against R. Chamberlain, for whom Mr Beattie appeared. A. I. Rattray, Secretary to the Club, stated that he instructed two men named Parker and Luce, to serve written notices on bookmakers that they would not be allowed on the course; the men were also instructed to remove such persons from the course.

R. W. Parker stated that he served a notice on August 10th on the defendant. That was at the gate of the course. He refused to take it, but it was picked up by Constable Dougan, who read it to him. He went away, but witness saw him on the course afterwards and requested him to leave. He refused and remained. The defendant, to his knowledge, was a bookmaker. Cross-examined —Witness did not see him taking bets. Witness knew him and his occupation, and he informed the Secretary. He did not try to put defendant off the course. Thomas Luce deposed to the notice being given, and to seeing defendant on the ground afterwards. Cross-examined—He knew defendant was a bookmaker, and had often seen him on

racecourses following his vocation. Constable Dougan stated that he read the notice to the defendant and told him that

the signature was that ol the Secretary to the Club.

This was the case for the prosecution. The defendant, in answer to Mr Beattie, said he went on to the course as any other person did, by paying for admission. He did not go as a bookmaker, and did not bet. FWheF $$ not serve him with a notice. S« threw a.r» envelope «.t him. He AIA not

v. ILL; c Wlii tended some race meetings, and sometimes did some "pencilling," Constable Dougan read the paper, but he (defendant) did not fully gather its contents. When he was prevented from going in his entrance fee was returned to him, but afterwards he bought another ticket.

Hi it

EL Shottlander was similarly charged. Mr Weston appeared for him. A. I. Rattray repeated bis evidence in Chamberlain's case.

Cross-examined—The Club was not incorporated. The Committee managed its affairs under a general authority; their duties were not specifically defined. The instructions about bookmakers were authorised by resolution of the Committee. He produced the minute. Witness was verbally instructed. Witness knew defendant was a bookmaker who had advertised his calling. He had heard him touting at this meeting. R. W. Parker deposed to meeting defendant at tbe gate and warning him, but he watched his chance and rushed in. Afterwards witness saw him laving the odds and ordered him off, He did not go.

Cross-examined—Witness did not serve a notice on the defendant. He saw him on the course on both days of the meeting. There was a large number of bookmakers on the course.

T. Luce gave corroborative evidence. Mr Weston submitted that the Committee had not been legally appointed. There was no rale of the Club giving them power to pass the resolution under which the Secretary acted, and the Secretary had no power to give the men Parker aud Luce power to forbid and remove people. H. Shottlander stated that he was an importer of furs ; he was not a bookmaker. He went on the course to execute a commission to back some horses on the totalisator. Was not spoken to on the course by Parker, and never was spoken to by Luce. Cross-examined—What Parker said about warning, &c., was not true ; he had been a bookmaker, but not for some years. This concluded the evidence.

Mr Beetham said the cases were fully proved. In former convictions he had in* tlicted fines of £1. He intended to double the amount, or, if defendants preferred, he would fine them £5, which would give them the option to appeal. When it was apparent that men paid no attention to repeated decisions of the kind, it would become necessary to inflict fines so large as to make it a very serious business. Neither of the defendants elected to take

the larger penalty, and they were fined each £2, with costs of Court 7s, witnesses' expenses 6s 6d, and counsel's fee £1 Is..

The following defendants admitted the offence, and were each fined £2 (tho costs of witnesses in these cases were assessed at Ss 6d eacii, with costs of Court 7s, and counsel's fee £1 Is, iv all £1 13s 6d):—Bert Champion, J. Ross, C. Chamberlain, T. Williams and N. Smith.

Convictions were recorded also in the cases of S. Lewis, W. MiUer, J. Ross, J. Ryan, H. Mooney, J. Cockburn, F. Franklin, M. Heslip and W. Whitta, who were each fined £2, with costs £1 13s 6d. A case against C. Mack was dismissed, and another against H. Forward, with solicitor's fee £1 Is, Mr Boattie appearing for him.