"SUNDAY GOLF"

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3057, 19 April 1917, Page 6

"SUNDAY GOLF"

CITY COUNCIL'S APPEAL DISMISSED

if THE BY-LAW INVALID

Judgment was delivered in the Supreme Court yesterday upon the appeal' of the Wellington City Council against the .dismissal by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., of a charge of Sunday golfing on a municipal ' reserve.. The-Magistrate, it will be remembered, dismissed the, case upon the following grounds:—That the by-law was repugnant to the laws of New Zealand; that it unreasonably dealt with the question of religion, and that it was ultra, vires as unnecessarily interfering with the right of private judgment. _ The Supreme Court upheld this decision. : In his v judgment, His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, said: The sole question that the Court has to determine is whether a certain information ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the by-law under which the was laid was invalid. That by-law is as follows: "No person shall play or practice golf on any Sunday on ,any part of the Town Belt reserves that are vested in the corporation." The evidence is that the respondent did play or practice golf on a Sunday, and on part of the Town Belt_ reserves 'that is vested in the corporation. If, therefore, the by-law is valid the Magistrate ought to have .convicted him. Provisions of the Act. The Act provides that no by-law shall be valid if a breach thereof would involve a breach only of some religious or moral rule. Reliance, 'however, has been placed by the appellant on certain powers that the corporation has, first, under a deed by which the reserve was vested in the corporation, and, second, by virtue of the Wellington City Town Belt Reserves Act, 1908, and by tho Public Reserves and Domains, Act, 1908. It is clear, however, that this information was not laid under any regulations or laws 1 made under the deed of trust or tho Public Reserves and' Domains Act, or tho Wellington City Town Belt Reserves Act. . There was no provision in the Reserves Act to provide a penalty for any breach of regulations. , Tho bylaw purported to be made under the Municipal Corporations Act.

It may be, however, necessary to point out that in dealing with recreation grounds the city corporation _ is | bound and empowered by subsection (g) of section 29 of the Public Reserves and Domains Act, 1908, which says ''That the trustees of a reserve may prescribe the games which may'he played in a reserve or any part thereof and regulate the use of the reserve for suclr games,' and may prohibit the playing of any games at times when the reserve would be thereby damaged, and prohibit altogether the playing, of any particular game therein." lam of opinion that this subsection (g) would not permit tho corporation to make, by-law such as the one which is in question.' might prohibit the playing of a game altogether on the reserve, and it might prohibit the playing of golf if the reserve would bo thereby damaged, but it could not prohibit the playing of golf, on Sunday.

"It seems to neldod His Honour, "■that'the Court is driven to the conclusion that there is no reasonable suggestion that the by-law was aimed at anything else but what/the Magistrate states, namely, to enforce Sunday observance, and that it was with that object that the .bv-law was passed and the information laid. What of the private Golfer? "There was a further ground on which it was said the by-law was-un-reasonable, in that it prohibits practically on Sunday most outdoor games on the belt, if it is coupled with a bylaw previously passed. People cannot play on the belt football, cricket, or any other similar game on a Sunday—l presume that might- include croquet— nor can they play or practise golf on a Sunday. The public using public reserves are therefore debarred from tlicse recreative games on a Sunday.. It does not prohibit them from using the belt on even Christmas Day, on New Year's Day, on Labour Day, or on other public holidays, and I rm of opinion that the reasonable inference is that tlic prohibition that has been put in the by-laws- mentioncd_is a prohibition to enforce Sunday observance. Considering that the State is neutral in religion, is secailar, :.nd that the State has provided for Sunday observance only so far as prohibitng work in public or in shops, etc., is concerned, and not prohibiting games, it cannot be said that this by-law is a reasonable by-law. It also, has to he borno in mind that recreation on Sunday is not an offence even in countries ivhere the Christian religion is established as law. Further, golf and other like games are played on golf links belonging to private clubs. Such playing is therefore not deemed contra bonos mores. If those who can afford to pay the foes for the use of private grounds are permitted to play, why should the public be debarred from using their own grounds for such, a purpose? Independently, therefore, of relying on Sub-section (el of Section 347, i think it might be held that the by-law was not reasonable and was therefore invalid.

"X am of opinion that tho Magistrate's decision sliould bo upheld, and •the appeal dismissed with the usual costs, namely, £10." Their Honours Sir John ton and Mr. Justice Chapman concurred.

"Most important is it that tlie smoker should know tlie percentage of nicotine in the tobacco he uses—for even tlie most robust constitution is undermined- by this poison when absorbed by the system regularly and in large quantities. American tobacco contains as much (is 4 per cent, and 5 per cent of nicotine. Smokers will be interested to learn that our New Zealand-grown tobacco contains only Iloz. of nicotine. Small wonder that it is so much milder an<l less harmful. New Zealand lias now its own tobacco industry, and we can well be proud of the locally <rrow*. picked, blended, and packed product, known as Gold Pouch Tobacco. Mild, deliffhtful in flavour, and aroma. eooL sweet, it is also far better vnluo than imported brands. Two and a quarter ouncesyes, Slot/for Is. Try it.—Advt.