RACECOURSE REGULATIONS

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12695, 25 October 1904, Page 6

RACECOURSE REGULATIONS

- —~»Q--..i; i,.^*. A BOOKMAKER'S APPEAL. CONVICTION QUASHED.:' rBT TttBeBAPH.-?BBS8 ASBOCUTXS.I '" ' i Wellington, Monday. In the case of Fail-burn v. Stead, De ;,. ' I of the Appeal Court delivered separate jT* ' i ments. That of the majority, as exponn W by Judge Williams, was aft follows:—If ' 1 found that appellant carried on the bus" '*"? * of bookmaker at a race meeting on th« '7*** fi terbury, Jockey, Club's course; that be ' \ duly warned to leave the course, but rVfa-T*'. ' 1 and "after such warning he continued to I carry on the same business; He was wake!" l ' • 1 again and refused to leave. In euc dream 1 stances, if carrying on the business of book* '" ,1 maker was forbidden by regulations lawfol}. 1 | made, His Honor was of opinion that a ' - j pellant was a trespasser and that, as he had I j refused to leave after due warning, . J,,, j, ft , | I committed the offence alleged in the infV ! I mation. It had been decided in the cite | of Patterson v. the ■ Canterbury ; Jockey {Jul, i j that there was a publio right of access to * ; racecourse- when used for racing purposes I but that power was vested in the board of ' trustees to. improve the conditions and J ' limit the rights of the public. If, therefore the public right was property limited 8 c to forbid the carrying on of the business if' ! bookmaker, any person carrying it on wouM, become a trespasser. The public right J' not an absolute right, for the public to «i on the course, and do as they please fere , but a right- qualified by regulation. * War k regulation, No. 31 (providing that no penal t 'i I should, on any part of the racecourse, carry ' ; on the business of bookmaker) within tha powers of the trustees to make? A racecourse reserve was for racing. The bettor the racing the better would the object? >rf'i' i the reserve be served and the more ;>»!-'- the Jockey Club could give as prizes tS - better the racing woulr 1 be. The. legal *'• ,tablishment of the"totalisator helped to sun. ply the club with funds to give these nrfotf. and the competition of the bookmakers with the totalisator tended to lesst-n t!{* funds. If the trustees thought it was ia'i]js'> best interests of rutin;; to prevent 'this <■< '~ i petition. His Honor sw no reason whylihej- 1 should not make a regulation for thai ti>r-' * I pose. If the magistrate was ► competent & , I determine the matter, his decision was ri4jt ■ 1 and conviction should be affirmed. iW ' J question was whether the magistrate ' - | competent. It had been established that' $ there was a public right'of access to the i racecourse subject to limitations, and prim's, 1 facie,- therefore, defendant had a right to - I access unless that right was limited by re. ' I gulations lawfully made. It -»as 'it f}- 9 .1 prosecution who set up ; the regulations in "' restraint of the public right to establish that I the regulations were lawfully made and were intra vires. This the- defendant disputed?: <■:■-".:( also the regulations and th advancement <\&W r ' title as far as it was possible to dispute ' them. His Honor thought it was established -' that there were fair and reasonable grounds-1 for defendant's assertion of his publio right ; and he thought, therefore, that thjiwigifr trate was not competent to try the ease, and that upon these grounds couvbtioa ■ should be quashed. In view, however, of the decision of the majority of thft Court on ' : the issue, it was necessary to add that persons who in future infringed the regulation* V. could not hope to set up this defence. Tim law, which before may have been doubtful, had now been made certain. t The Chief Justice was the only" member;' of the Bench who held the opinion that twM>%'■ appeal should be dismissed. The magis- ? ! trato had found that the appellant was carrying on the business of bookmakutg-,' : aiid - i it was not open- to this -Court to,- review lm .-;\ , finding. It was not an unreachable exer- 1 | cise of the powers granted to the trustees to: j make regulations to enact that no business ' of any kind, bookmaking or other, " "J i be carried.op upon the racecourse. That, in his opinion, < settled the first question raised. The other question was whether a violation of the rule 31 made a bookmaker 6 t.rttt.if' 1 passer. His 'Honor was of opinion ,ttit breach'' of rule 31 the right ot «uy one of, the public who had committed that breach '■ • to be on the ground ceased. Appellant was "' warned to leave the course and did not in ; a so. Therefore 'he became a trespasser ■„: | was rightly convicted. ■ J « BEMARKS BY JUDGE EDWARDS/' / [BY TEKSRBATir.— SPr.CLVL COEItISt'dNDEST.) •/:;.; : Wellington . Mcadiy; .' In the course of his judgment in the hoot . makers case, in the Court of Appeal io-KV;-;■ v ; Mr. Justice Edwards" remained that, *'• Jockey Club had a direct interest in, pre* - , , ventihg bookmakers from. 1 practicing their I calling upon the racecourse, and it was idle : ;;I to suggest ■ that anyone's sen--, of morality or propriety could be more offended hy tlie fact- that some persons bet with individual ; -' moving quietly and decently ab; i th.-* ru** course, than by the fact that other pa-ws' ,| .bet through the medium of the 'iottlisato?. If a bookmaker betted upon the course in«:-;;i. disorderly manner he could be rrvi'iw,r by , laws nrepcrly made. If he was neither disorderly himself nor''conducted his opeiititaa in such a manner as necessarily to Mum dia» order in ' others, then he could not, ia Bis Honors opinion, be prohibited from heittifig upon the course. The fair inferen* from [~■ the regulations was that they were interJ^.:.'/., : not to prevent disorder, but to prevent boofc-';- . makers from participating in the profits mad-*;.:;; by, gambling upon the racecourse. If tho trustees really wished to prevent bookmakersv ! from conflicting their operations, so ts to cause disorder they could have no difficulty ■ in framing valid by-laws to this effect. The,. ; real struggle in the present, oase was whether*- '"■ the licensees; of the totalisator should hint ' ; the whole of the profits of gambling"; ';': a upon ■ the racecourse or whether *!«"- '|| bookmakers should be allowed to par* U ticipate in the profits. . If it was desir- ■' 1 able to suppress the bookmakers in this rant- ] ter the assistance of the Legislature ought to •;■ bo invoked to that end. If ail gambling :,. B could be <impressed or materially dicouvagod ■ M a very great public benefit would be conferred ' - ■ upon the community, but the remedy must I be something more drastic and far reaching a than the exclusion of bookmakers from'* M ; publio racecourse. ' |