ALLEGED TRESPASS ON RACECOURSE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 138, 7 March 1921, Page 9

ALLEGED TRESPASS ON RACECOURSE

LIVINGSTONE CHARGED INTERESTING LEGAL POINT RAISED Matthew Livingstone appeared before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court on Saturday morning, and was charged that, being a. person absolutely’ excluded from the Hutt Paik racecourse, he did trespass on the course on January 21, when a race meeting was being held there. Chief-Detective a *’“ appeared for the police, and Mr. M. Luckie for Livingstone. The chief-detective said that the information was laid under the regulations of 1919 in connection with section 33 of th© Gaming Act. The regulations were mad© in respee,t to the Hutt Park racecourse. On January 21 the Hutt Park was occupied by the Trotting Club, and a. race meeting was held that day. At 11.15 a.m. the defendant was seen on th© course by Detective Nuttall, who ordered him to leave it, ou the ground that h© was a bookmaker. The regulations absolutely excluded bookmakers from the course. Th© chief-detective also said that he understood counsel contested the statement that accused was a bookmaker on the date in question. His Worship had heard all the evidence that was subsequently given in the Supreme Court w’hen Livingstone was charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker, nnd he intended to call the same evidence to prove that the defendant was a bookmaker. He quoted several authorities in support, and pointed out that it had been held that a man who acted as a bookmaker was, in effect, a bookmaker.

Mr. Luckie said that on January 21, Livingstone was a taxi-driver, and took some people out to the Hutt Park racecourse. At that time he was out on bail on the charge of being a bookmaker, on which he was acquitted by a jury in the Supreme Court. Counsel contended that the evidence that was adduced in the Supreme Court could not be adduced now in connection with the present charge. It was contrary to the principles of law, which laid it down that a man could not be placed in peril twice for the same offence. It was admitted that Livingstone was on the course, and if he was not a bookmaker he was not a trespasser under the regulations. The whole issue, therefore, was whether he was a bookmaker, and that question had already been decided by a jury in the Supreme Court. The offence now alleged against him was that he was u bookmaker, and the origin of this charge and that on which he was acquitted by a jury arose out of th© same set of facts. Counsel contended that Livingstone was not a bookmaker. Mr. Hunt: The jury found that he was not a bookmaker on certain days, but that did not prove he was not a bookmaker on this date. Mr. Luckie: The evidence to be submitted to this Court is precisely the evidence presented in the Supreme Court. Chief-Detective Ward contended that the test was not whether the facts relied upon were the same; the question was whether Livingstone was acquitted of an offence which was the same offence as that set out in the present charge. The Magistrate said he would look into the matter, and give his decision later.