Evening Post. FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1901. THE RACING CLUBS AND THE BETTING MEN.

Evening Post, Volume LXI, Issue 85, 12 April 1901, Page 4

Evening Post. FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1901. THE RACING CLUBS AND THE BETTING MEN.

— . <» _ The, Riccarton Racecourse hag been | jealously guarded and zealously assaulted. I Since the occurrence which culminated in the case of >Proffitt v. Parker and others, heard in 1897, the battle , has waged incessantly. First it took the shape of the club forcibly expelling betting men. The Courts decided thaf the club was not in a position to take the law into' it,s own hanus. Then followed Police Court prosecutions, and these, too, failed, inasmuch as the bettors pleaded "colour of right" to go on the course. The last stage shiited into a civil action for % trespass against Mr. Robert Patterson/ who last Mew Zealand Cup day was rushed by his friends through the club gates, despite the frantic' efforts of the club olndials. ' Patterson, of course, is only the nominal defendant. The club is righting tho New Zealand starcing-price neiders— men, with large capital at' their command, and men, moreover, not afraid to spend their money when their objecb is worth it. So determined and so persistent a battle cannot be waged without good reason. No man likes to be kept out of a race.course enclosure ; but the men fighting the club are not of a class who throw away money for sentiment, and presumably the club funds are only spent to the pecuniary advantage of the club.' Eetting men are striving to secure *legally an opportunity to reap a money advantage, the club to prevent a diversion of their legitimate earnings. And the stubbornness of the contest shows the large amount at stake. The amount dij verted from the iotalisator ' into the pockets of the prominent New Zealand " metallicians," could ' it be ascertained, would probably surprise most people. In the iirst place, the system is credit; then the backer does not automatically lessen his own price. Finally, a word' or a " wire " obviates on the one hand the jostling and struggling to get to the machine, or on the other the trouble of a money order wire to the Secretary of the club. And as a body the layers pay, with promptitude — if with reluctance The consequence is that in many races, and ! Bmalf ones at that, individual layers have | as much as £100 and upwards invested with them on a single horse. And the aggregate volume of illegal "tote" betting is enormous. On a course,- too, the evil is most rampant, uecause there men bet most freely, and the betting more directly deflects money which would otherwise go into the machine. That is why the clubs dread an "open door," and that is why the late decision" has caused such jubilation on the one ha,nd, and such dismay on the other. In all cases where the circumstances are similar the judgment will operate, and no process of law will exclude the professional bettors. Now, what exactly was the judgment of the Court of Appeal, given by a majority of three Judges to two? In the lirst place it applied to Riccnrton alone. That raceoourso was granted to trustees as a reserve for a public racecourse to be carried on under such regulations as. the trustees should make,. Ths trustee;* leased the land to the Canterbury Jockey Club upon certain conditions for racing purposes, and purported to give tho club power to prescribe conditions as to payment, admission, etc. No regulation was made by the trustees prohibiting any class of persons from entering, but one of the conditions made by the club expressly forbade bookmakers to enter the grounds. The majority of tho Court held that, except as validly limited by regulation of the trustees, the public had an unqualified right of entry to Riccarton j and 'that tho trustees must make the regulations themselves,' and could not delegate . their powers ; that, therefore, no regulation existed limiting Patterson's right of entry, and, therefore that he could not be stopped. The- main point in dispute, however, remained unsettled, The bookmakers contended that no regulation, even of the trustees, could lawfully exolude a class of persons by reason of their calling, when that calling was not in itself illegal. That, of course, is what the clubs racing on reserves . held under similar grants to Riccarton really desire to know, and doubtless that point will be raised almost immediately. Should the bookmakers eventually .succeed, then clubs will have to cease racing on reserves, unless the legislation introduced last session, giving stewards summary power to eject is carried into }aw^ At the same time Riccarton is almost tho pjlly course affected. Other clubs may race on reserves, but if, as in the case of the Hufct Racecourse, j there is nothing in the grant or in the Provincial Ordinance giving the public a right of access overriding the right of the club in possession, then, as in the case of Champion,, who fought the local Club in 1898, tho Courts will "hold any person setting' the club at defiance a trespasser. No doubt the bookmakers will use their victory to its \jtmost, and properly enough, too, from ; their point of view ; but it would seem j well, in the interests of racing generally on public reserved, that the legislation mooted should be carried.