CHARGE AGAINST THE FORBURY PARK RACING CLUB.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11483, 16 January 1903, Page 5

CHARGE AGAINST THE FORBURY PARK RACING CLUB.

AN INTERESTING POINT. (SPECIAL TO "THE FBESS.") DUNEDIN, January 15. A case of considerable importance in sporting circles came before the Magistrate. Mr Graham, to-day, when E. L. Macassey, secretary of the Forbury Park Racing Club, was charged with on Ist December last causing an advertisement to be inserted in tbe " Star" with intent to induce persons to resort to Forbury Park racecourse for the purpose of making bets on events or contingencies relating to horse racing.

The case for the police showed that tne information was laid under section 2 ot tue Gaming and Lotteries Act Amendment Act, 1885, which provided that no person should cause advertisements to be published in any newspaper with intent to induce persons to resort to any house, place, or othce for the purpose of betting. The advertisement stated that applications would be received in writing by Mr Macassey from persons wishing to bet at the Club's meeting on

December 20th, the fee inside being £5 5* and outside £3 3s. The Club h.id no license for a totalisator, and the suggestion the Inspector asked his Worship to take from the adve'rti_.em>e'iit was that it wa« inserted to inform the racing public that betting would be carried on at the meeting. The Sub-Inspector explained thenwas no definition of "place" in the Act. but a place, he said, was defined by different authorities to show that it referred to any place where people met to carry on betting, and in support of his contention he cited the English erase of Brown t Patch, an appeal from Justices who dismissed the case on the giround that a place was not sufficiently defined. The ewe was .subsequently taken before the Queen's Bench, and the Judges held that the man should have been convicted.

Detective Cooney gave evidence to ..the effect that nine bookmakers were licensed to bet inside and fifteen outside.

The case, remarked the Sub-Inspector, was a test one, and he asked the Magistrate bo take the view of what any ordinary intelligent person would understand by the advertisement. Mr Sim, for the defence, admitted the defendant inserted the advertisement. He submitted the advertisement was not inserted with intent to induce any person to resort to a place for the purpose of making bets, that it was not an invitation to w_e public to resort to the course for the purpose of betting. The important question was whether a racecourse could be regarded as a place within the meaning of the section, and he submitted it was not a place within the meaning of the section. That point had really been settled by the House of Lords in 1899, in the case of Power v the Kempton Park Racecourse Company. That case was absolutely decisive on the point, that a 'racecourse or an enclosure used by bookmakers for the purpose of making wagers with the public was not a place within the meaning of the Gaming Act. What the English Gaming Act and the New Zealand Gaming and Lotterres Act of 1881 were directed against was the owner or occupier of houses where betting was carried on. If the Jockey Club in the present case bad been carrying on betting on its own account, and had used the enclosure for the purpose of carrying on betting, then it would probably have been guilty of an offence within the meaning of the Act, and it would also have been guilty of an offence under the Act of 1885 by inserting the advertisement But it was clear that they merely permitted bookmakers to go on to the racecourse or enclosure for the purpose of 'betting with the public", and that, was no offence under the 0-..y..=t)-_. and Lotteries Act. • Sim then referred to the English oases to show thai it was peileety legal for a Jockey Club to permit bookmakers to go to Torburv and bet. His Worship said that he would reserve his decision. He was not quite satisfied that this case was on all fours with the Kempton Park case.