CHARGES OF TRESPASS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2923, 23 March 1910, Page 57

CHARGES OF TRESPASS.

A TECHNICAL POINT. CHRISTCHURCH, March 15. Mr Bishop, S.M., gave judgment to-day in the case of the Canterbury Jockey Club v Archie Anderson who -was charged with being unlawfully on the Christchurch racecourse on February 3. The Magistrate said that, in his opinion, the regulations were not made in accordance with the act, and therefore they must be held to be ultra- vires. The point on which he had reserved his decision was as to whether the section made the regulations, when once gazetted, sufficient evidence. After considering it, he had arrived at the conclusion that it did not affect the position at all. The regulations were initially bad, and the Gazette notice did not make them conclusive evidence. The oases noted by Mr Stringer were all distinguishable from this particular one, and he could find no authority that justified him in holding that mere publication in the Gazette made them sufficient evidence, or that he was justified in any way in refusing to go behind the initial badness of the regulations. The case would be dismissed, with costs. In regard to the other cases, if the club was going to appeal he would adjourn them, but if not he would dismiss them. Mr Wright, who appeared for the club, said he would ask for an adjournment for a week. The cases were accordingly adjourned. Mr Stringer, K.C., appeared for the club at the hearing of the case, and Mr Donnelly for defendant. UNSUCCESSFULTROSECUTION. WELLINGTON, March 18. Persons (other than those so designated by statute) classed as " undesirable " by the rules of racing do not become trespassers on a racecourse until the license conveyed by their ticket of admittance has been revoked by their being ordered off. Therefore they must be ordered off a second time. Such is the effect of a decision given by Mr W. G. Riddell, S M:, to-day in the cases in which J. M. Cummings and J. H. Williams were charged under four separate informations with trespassing on the Trentham Racecourse during the pogress of the Wellington Racing Club's January meeting. The informant in each case was James Walden, racecourse detective. His Worship gave no ruling upon the- question of whether or not the defendants could be properly classed as " undesirable," deciding the cases only upon the question of law raised by counsel for defendants. His Worship, in giving judgment, recalled that each defendant bought a ticket which admitted him to the course unconditionally. His entry was therefore lawful. When he was on each day told to leave it could not be said that he was at that instant a trespasser. In Loughton v. Guinness it had been decided that a person must be a trespasser at the time the warning was given to bring him within the statute. In the present cases it had not been proved that defendant was a trespasser when he was warned to leave the course. If either or both were trespassers, then there was no proof of a second warning and a refusal to leave. His Worship added that under the circumstances it was. unnecessary for him to decide whether being officials of an unregistered racing club constituted either defendant an undesirable character if found on a registered club's racecourse when their reputations as citizens was otherwise satisfactory. The information must be dismissed. Each defendant was allowed two guineas. Mr Blair (instructed by Mr Young, who ■ appeared for defendants) applied for expenses of witnesses called to give evidence as to character. Mr Blair, plaintiff's counsel, reminded the court that he had in opening the case expressly admitted the good character of the defendants. The question at issue in regard to that matter, had his Worship felt called upon to decide the point, was merely whether the informant correctly interpreted the instructions of his employers. His Worship said that in allowing the amount of- costs he had allowed he had been influenced by the fact that the proceedings had been instituted by a body, which should have been aware of its legal position. He declined to allow witnesses' expenses.