EXTRA EDITION

Evening Post, Volume LXIV, Issue 149, 20 December 1902, Page 6

EXTRA EDITION

CRICKET. AUCKLAND v LORD HAWKE'S TEAM. TO-DAY'S PLAY. \Vt TELEGRAPH — PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, This Day. Play in the match between Lord Hawke's team and the Auckland representatives was resumed at 11 o'clock this morning. The wicket was very soft after the heavy rains. Stanning and Johnson continued the Englishmen's innings. The former tried to drive Stemson, who clean bowled him. 281—8—33. The retiring batsman's innings of 33 had been characterised by neat driving. Later. Lorlc Hawke's team are out for 321 runs. Concluding scores are :is follows :—: — Letham, b Lusk 11 Johnson, c Robinson, b Lusk ... £3 Whatman, not out 6 Extras 1 Total • 321 Bowling analysis.— Neill, 102 runs, 1 ■wicket; Stemson, 111 runs 5 wickets; Lusk, 48 runs 3 wickets; Barclay, 59 rims 1 wicket. AUCKLAND STARTS BADL*. At half-past 2, four Aucklanders were out for 37 runs. Clayton scored 13, MeCormick 6, Neill 17, Ohlson 0. EXCLUDING BOOKMAKERS. o A HUTT RACECOURSE CASE. ARGUMENT IN~THE SUPREME COURT. The right to exclude bookmakers from ;he Hutt Racecourse was involved in the special case argued before the Chief Justice this morning in the action brought by the Stewards of the Wellington Racing Club against Solomon Lewis, bookmaker, to recover £50 for trespass. Mr. Ben appeared for the stewards, and Mr. Skerrett, with Mr. Levi, for the defendant. The lands on which the defendant was alleged to have trespassed formed part of the Hutt Park, leased by the 'iruste'es to the Stewards of the llacing Club. In pursuance of the statutory powers vested in them, the Trustees in April last made and published regulations, which the lessees have duly covenanted to fulfil. By these bylaws, no person shall upon any portion of the racecourse carry on the business of a bookmaker without the •written consent' of the Trustees or of the Racing Club for the time being entitled to the use of the racecourse. By regulation 28 it is provided that no person shall "obtain admission to be or be upon anj r part of the racecourse unless so erftitled under these rules and regulations." On 16th and 19th July the Racing Club held a meeting, prior to which they advertised that bookmakers would not be admitted to the racecourse, and that no person would be allowed to shout or cry betting odds or advertise himself to the public as open to make Dets or lay odds, or as willing to enter into any betting or wagering contract. On the days in question, defendant was alleged to have entered the course and carried on the business of a bookmaker and betting agent and cried the odds. He refused to leave, and was ejected. Mr. Bell contended that the regulations made by the Council were perfectly valid. The general Legislature had pwaioited congregating for the purpose of betting, and as it might become a public nuiGance, it was submitted tho trustees had a right to make the bylaws it did make. Thus the trustees were justified in requiring the bookmakers to go. Mr. Skerrett contended that the regulations in question,. were invalid (a) because they were not regulations which prescribed the conditions on which the public shall be permitted to have access to the racecourse, nor were they regulations for the preservation of order on the course; (b) because they gave power to the trustees or to any racing club m possession of the course to dispense with these regulations ; (c) they authorised the trustees and any racing club in possession of the course to differentiate between persons doing the same act, to allow one person to do the act and forbid another to do it; (d) they practically delegated to the Racing Club the power to enforce them qr not. 2. The particular regulations were invalid because (a) they purported to make a person- who had lawfully entered the course a trespasser ab initio, and to annul his statutory right of entry; (b) they purported to exclude a person even though ht might not be at tho time committing a breach of the regulations. 3. The regulations were unreasonable. 4. They were invalid, further, because (a) they did not fix the dates on which the Racing Club shall told race meetings on the course, but merely appointed a period during which the club should hold its meetings; (b) they deprived the trustees of the power and discretion of leasing the racecoursv to other racing clubs by appointing certain days for an idefinite period to one club— the Wellington Racing Club. Fifthly, Mr. Skerrett contended that the doctrine of trespasser ab initio did not apply in. this case because (a) the entry was not by general authority or general license of law, bu.t was pursuant cither to a contract or a trust; (b) the regulations said to be broken were not conditions of the right to enter the course; (c) there was nothing to show that the entry was for the purpose of carrying on the business of bookmaking Lastly, the lease was invalid (a) because there was no power in the trustees to lease to one racing club, and (b) because of ita uncertainty. After further argument, and on its being intimated that the matter was on? of some immediate importance, his Honour said he would deliver judgment on Boxing Day. mmmmmmmmmmm _ mmmmmm^ m