BOOKMAKER v. JOCKEY CLUB.

Otago Witness, Issue 2454, 27 March 1901, Page 47

BOOKMAKER v. JOCKEY CLUB.

WELLINGTON, March 22.

The case of Patterson v. the Canterbury Jockey (Jiub was argued at the Court of Appeal to-day. This is a cas^e in which the right of the Canterbury Jockey Club to exclude bookmakers, from the Riccarton racecour&e during a race meeting is in question. The club sought to exclude appellant from the course at the spring race meeting in November last. The appellant persisted in entering, and the cub siied him for damages for trespass and claimed an injunction. The case was heard last month before Mr Justice Denniston without a jury. His Honor held that the Jockey Club had power to exclude appellant, and that appellant was a trespasser, and gave judgment for the Jockey Club for £5 damages and costs. This decision is now appealed from. Mr (i. Harper and Mr Skerrett appeared for appellant, Mr Fisher and Mr Stringer for the ' respondent. The club's cage was argued before the Chief Justice and Judges Williams, Conolly, Edwards, and Cooper. The question turns upon the terras of the Crown grant of the racecourse, and upon the provisions of " The Christchurch Race"course Reserve Act, 1878," and " The Public Reserves Act Amendment Act, 1885." The racecourse- reserve was gi anted in 1857 tp trustees in trust for the public racecourse for the province of Canterbury. By " The Christchmx-h Racecourse Reserve Act, 1878," a board of trustees was constituted. The preamb'e to the act recite& that the reserve had been granted in trust for the purposes ot a public racecourse, and the act declares that trustees are to hold for the purposes of racing. The act gives the trustees power to prescribe the terms and conditions on which the public shall be permitted to enter. Section 8 of " The Public Reserves Act Amendment Act, 1885," gave power to the trustees to let the couise to clnbs for the purpose of holding race meetings on certain days in the year on terms and conditions to be prescribed by the trustees. Power was also given to the trustees to make legulations. The trustees in September last made regulations giving the Canterbury Jockey Club the right of exclusive possession on certain days, and purporting to empower the club to exclude any person or class of persons, not being members of the club, from the course on those days. Under this regulation the Jockey Club, on the 2nd. November last, passed a resolution that no bookmaker, or professional gambler, or undesirable person should be admitted to or suffered to remain on the Riccarton racecourse whilst any race meeting is being held by the club. The principal questions raised by the case are as to the validity of the above regulations of the trustees and the resolution of the club. Counsel for the appellant conlended that the powers of the trustees of the racecourse to let the course to the Jockey Club do not extend to authorise them to give the club the right of excluding any section of the public, and that the only right of the club is to prescribe conditions as to payment and otherwise on which the public genera^v s-hall ba entitled to admission. Counsel for the respondent club argue that on the other hand the act shows that both public and private racing was contemplated, and that on the days on which the couise is let to a private racing club that club may be given absolute discretion a^. to the admission and the way, and if it chores may corftine the attendance to that of members and friend* invited. Argument was concluded in the afternoon, and the court reserved its decision.