BOOKMAKERS AND THEIR RIGHTS.

Evening Post, Volume LIII, Issue 113, 14 May 1897, Page 6

BOOKMAKERS AND THEIR RIGHTS.

THE TEST CASE IN TIIE COURT OF APPEAL. The interesting racing case, Pollock v. Saunders and others, stewards of the Feilding Jockey Club, involving the question of the power of racing clubs to exclude bookmakers from their race-meetings, is still before the Supreme Court. In the course of his argument upholding the rights of bookmakers to use the course, Mr. Jellicoe submitted that the license under the Gaming and Lotteries Act was not granted to the Feilding Club merely for its own emolument, but for the benefit of the public. They accepted the monopoly cum onere. The license has no connection with the owner's interest, and is given on public grounds, and when private property becomes affected ¦with a public interest ifc ceases to be juris privati ; further, that every member of the community is entitled to enjoy in common with other members the benefits of a public interest and privilege ?o created. The Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted to regulate wagering by and for the benefit of the public, and sections S, 13, and 47 were not inserted merely for the beuefit of the racing clubs, but for the public. Under the statute it was made penal for any person to wager in an}* place, public or private, and the public in New Zealand had only one legalised mode of gambling— to ¦wit, by means of the totalisator. Therefore the public were interested in a privilege which was conferred by statute and also necessitated under the license issued to jockey clubs. Inasmuchas it had been decided that the statute prohibits bookmakers from •using any place, whether public or private, from- following their avocation, he submitted that the bookmakers were as much entitled to bet under the protection accorded by the statute as any other member of the community, and it was never contemplated conferring a privilege upon one section of the public- and prohibiting another section from participating in it. If these arguments were sound, th« plaintiff Pollock was clearly justified in entering the racecourse in the exercise of his common law rights. It was admitted thut the plaintiff -fas aware of the ..advertised prohibition against bookmakers, but as he notified the club of his intention to attend the meeting, and the club's agents having accepted his money, he had reasonable grounds for believing he had a right to believe that the objection, as far as he was concerned, had been withdrawn, and his transaction with the totalisator involved a common interest which estopped the defendants from treating the plaintiff as a trespasser. Assuming that there was no statutory license, and that the plaintiff was rightly on tho ground, with the leave of the club, the permission carried with it the right to enjoy the privileges and immunities in 'respect of ¦wagering with the totalisator; and Mr. Jellicoe maintained that the license was irrevocable, as it was distinguishable from a license for pleasure, involving as it did both profit and loss ; that even if the license was revocable it could, only be revoked upon terms of restoring the plaintiff to his original position aud returning the moneys paid for admission and deposits with the totalisator; and if revocable without performing those conditions the plaintiff was still entitled to recover the moneys paid for admission and his investments, and all legal damages, if any, by the breach of the contract, if any, implied by the sale and delivery of the ticket. With reference to the last set of questions submitted in the case, involving tho construction of a section of the Police Offences Act, Mr. Jeilicoe had to admit that they were based upon matters ¦which had not yet come into existence, and ¦were fictitiously raised for tho purpose of obtaining a. decision. Their Honours held that they could not he dealt' with" in 'tlie present case, and consequently they were not argued. On the Court resuming after che luncheon adjournment, Mr. Justice Williams intimated that the Court only desired to hear Mr. Gully on one point. They were i-atisfied, apart from the question of tho grant of the use of a totalisator to the club giving the plaintiff a right, that the plaintiff would be a trespasser and not a licensee, and could not succeed. Mr. Gully, on behalf of the Racing Club, said it was obvious that Mr. Jellicoe's contention went to this extent ; that the whole of the public have a statutory right on payment of the admission charge to be present at the races, and that tho authorities controlling the race-meetings had, therefore, no power to exclude any section, which meant that they could not refuse admission, for instance, to a disqualified person, a prostitute, a well-known pickpocket, or any other objectionablo person. He submitted that there was no inference of a statutory right given to the public, or that racing clubs were restrict ed from a reasonable discretionary right, to exclude certain persons. A professional bookmaker was excluded, so far as his business was concerned, by section 13, or at least the Statute contemplates the exclusion of persons whose prolession • it is to make use of the racecourse for business purposes, and it was a reasonable inference that the racing authorities sho uld say that bookmakers were persons who should bo excluded altogether. .Neither the statute nor the regulations gave any ground for tho inference that a right is conferred on the public to go on to what in this casa was private property, and the early English law of monopoly did not apply at all. Mr. Jellicoe having replied, the Court reserved judgment.