TRESPASS ON RACECOURSE.

Gisborne Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6318, 22 February 1922, Page 2

TRESPASS ON RACECOURSE.

FINES OF £5 IMPOSED

Charged that, being a person excluded from the course, he had trespassed on the Poverty Bay Turf Club’s racecourse while a race meeting was in progress, Arthur Owen appeared at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr J. S. Barton, S.M. The same charge was preferred against Charles Croon, who did not appear. Mr J. S. W’auchop, who represented both defendants, said that defendant Croon, before being summoned, had made arrangements to leave Gisborne, and had done so. Counsel had been instructed, however, to plead guilty on his behalf.

j Detective McLeod said the informai tion had been laid under the Gaming i Act. I'JUS, and a maximum penalty of | £2O was provided.s The offences had j been committed at the Makaraka race- ! course on February 11. when both deI fondants trespassed by viewing the 1 races from a side read leading up to ' tlie course enclosures. The defendant j Croon entered on the course at 4 p.m., I and was removed by a racecourse in- ! specter. Both defendants had for some ! years been-in the habit of standing at i the end of the side road which ran oil the maim road up to the course, to I view the races, and had been allowed to do so without interference. Now a Government course inspector had been appointed, but this was the first prosecution of its kind for some years. ! Croon had been standing just outside the enclosure on the side road and also I just inside tile gate, i Mr Wauchop drew attention to the | fact that it had been customary for-the ■ men in the past to view the races from tlie side road, which many considered was not part of the course, but a right of way. At one time persons not allowed on the course had been challenged at the gate on the main road where the side entrance branched off. but tlie racing club had found that l this hindered traffic and the practice was abandoned. As for Croon, he had . been actually inside the enclosure i when for a few moments he took the ■ gatekeeper’s seat just inside the gate, while the latter was standing up. The defendants had not been. anywhere where they had not been before. There was no suggestion of betting, as they were there purely to view the races, though it was admitted that they had previously been convicted of betting offences. 1 Both defendants had left immediately wlie:s requested to do so. and in the past jnexecution in such cases usually followed only when the men refused to leave at cnee.

In answer to His Worship, Detective McLeod said that this racing club had not advertised the exclusion of undesirables, though the other club had. The case against the defendant Owen was alike in all respects.

llis Worship fined each defendant £5 with costs 7s.