WRESTLING PERMIT REFUSED

Evening Star, Issue 22066, 27 June 1935, Page 8

WRESTLING PERMIT REFUSED

INSPECTOR'S POWERS CHALLENGED CASE BEFORE FULL COURT [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, June 27. The Full Court to-day is considering a dispute between the National Sporting Club (Incorporated), Wellington, and Mr W. G. Wohlmann, Commissioner of Police and Police Inspector G. B, Edwards. The originating summons before the court asks for an order that;—(l) Regulation Bof the Police Offences (Wrestling Contests) Regulations, 1931, is invalid, as being beyond the powers conferred on the GovernorGeneral by section 72 of the Police Offences Act. 1927; (2) that plaintiff was entitled to a permit to hold a wrestling contest between Earl M'Cready, of Canada, and George Walker, at Wellington Show Association’s Stadium on June 3, and such permit was wrongfully withheld; (3) that plaintiff was entitled to a permit to hold wrestling contests at any lawful times. Mr F. C. Spratt is appearing for the plaintiff club, and the Solicitor-General, Mr H. H. Cornish, and Mr J. D. Willis are for the defendants. In an affidavit filed in support of the summons, S. C. Childs, president of the plaintiff club, stated that in August 1932, when the club first made application to the police for a wrestling permit, he was informed by Mr Wohlmann that the department would not grant permits to an organisation unaffihated with the New Zealand Wrestling Union unless the application for a permit was sponsored by an affiliated organisation. The club was not affiliated to the New Zealand Union, and in 1932 an agreement was arrived at between the club and the union, as a result of which permits were obtained for that season. The club did not endeavour to conduct contests in the 1933 and 1934 seasons, but in May application was made for a permit for a bout between M'Cready and Walker, but the union would not agree, and the commissioner refused to grant the permit. In his answering affidavit the Commissioner of Police said that in 1932 permits were issued to the club, which was unable to secure contestants, with the result that certain approved contests were not held. M'Cready had left New Zealand two days after the application in question was received and before it had been dealt with, and Pereira, who was suggested as a substitute for M'Cready, wrestled under the New Zealand Union, and hence was not available to the club. The club was not able to import and maintain its own wrestlers, and relied on the Pioneer Athletic Club to supply it with contestants, and he had no knowledge of the constitution of the Pioneer Athletic Club, and whether it was financially able to import and maintain wrestlers. In the past the National Sporting Cub had engaged certain wrestlers to compete in contests, and those wrestlers subsequently were unable to leave New Zealand on account of lack of finance, and had to be assisted by the New Zealand Union. Moreover. Mr H. D. Bennett, who was formerly secretary, and before that president, of the New Zealand Wrestling Union, and who was connected with the control of the Pioneer Athletic Club, was previously strongly opposed to the granting of licenses to the club.

When the case was called this morning the Solicitor-General submitted that as the proceedings were in the form of an originating summons, inquiry must be restricted to the first question as above stated, and that the court could not deal with the second and third. Mr Spratt, in reply, said the pleadings raised three substantial questions —(1) whether regulation 8, under which the licenses were refused, was valid: (2) whether the inspector had any discretion to refuse a permit other than that set out in regulation 7: and, (3) whether the inspector could refuse a permit on the grounds indicated in this case. He submitted that under regulation 8, as it now stands, a police inspector could refuse all licenses, and say that in his district there would be no wrestling at all. The Chief Justice: “That would be unfortunate.” Mr Spratt: “ It would certainly have repercussions.” Continuing, Mr Spratt said the real issue raised between the parties was whether the police could refuse a permit on the grounds indicated in the case before the court. The Chief Justice remarked that the court was not in the least concerned with any dispute between two alleged sporting bodies, and that on the proceedings before it it could only interpret the Act and regulations, and for that reason the affidavits filed should b© totally disregarded. After some discussion it was agreed that the following questions should be decided by the court:—(l) Is regulation 8 valid? (2) Is a police inspector entitled to refuse a license as a matter of course? (3) If he is not, what is the limit of his discretion?

Mr Spratt then quoted authority at length in support of his contention that regulation 8 was beyond the. power given ,to the Governor-General by the Police Offences Act, 1927.