CASE AGAINST BOOKMAKERS

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2102, 10 June 1907, Page 1

CASE AGAINST BOOKMAKERS

A TARANAKI APPEAL. BOROUGH BY-LAW STANDS GOOD.

Mr. W. A. D. Banks, Registrar of the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, on May 31st read the decision of Mr J ustico Cooper in the recent appeal on law and fact by Albert Champion against the decision of Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M-., at New Plymouth. Mr Sj)cnce. for Albert Champion, appellant; Mr Quilliam, for Mussell Fleetwood, secretary of the Taranaki Jockey Club, respondent. The appellant was convicted by the Stipendiary Magistrate on 28th January, 1907, for betting on the New Plymouth Recreation and Racecourse on the 26th and 27tli December, 1906, contrary to the provisions of by-law number 10 (26) of the bylaws of the borough of New Plymouth.

Five grounds were stated in the notice of appeal. The first four were in respect to the fact of betting. Tlio matter was re-lieard and the evidence established that, in fact, the appellant did on the dates mentioned use the reserve for the purpose if betting as a bookmaker; that he did not merely make a casual bet, but on those dates carried on his business as a bookmaker, betting with number of persons on each date, not as a private person visiting the racecourse, but as a bookmaker plying his business as such. The fifth ground of appeal was upon points of law; the validity of the by-law being questioned upon four grounds (a) that the Borough Council had no power to make it; (b) that the by-law is contrary to the law and public policy of New Zealand; (c) that it is unreasonable; and (d) that it is uncertain, and operates unequally. The reserve was, under the New Plymouth Recreation and Racecourse Reserves Act, 1887, vested in the Corporation of the Borough of New Plymouth for purposes set forth, and section 3 enacted that the Corporation should have control of- the reserve, and should be the trustees thereof within the meaning of the Public Reserves Act, 1881, Amendment Act, 1885. The Council had been given power, and had exercised their power to set apart a portion of the reserve for the purposes of a racecourse, and the T.J.C. was entitled to use the racecourse for the purposes of holding race meetings on hot exceeding three days in the year; and the club was given power- to make, alter, and revoke regulations. But there was no evidence to show that the club had made such regulations, and the appellant was not charged with a breach of them. The .by-law for a breach of which the appellant was convicted by the Magistrate was a by-law purporting to have been made by the Corproation in pursuance of the powers and provisions contained in the Municipal Corporations’ Act, 1900, and the amendments thereof, and “under all other Acts and powers enablng the Council in that behalf to amend and add provisions to the by-laws of tlirj said Council.”

The by-law enacted that- no person who frequents or uses any public place for the purpose of bookmaking, betting or wagering, or agreeing to bet, wager, or pay, receive or settle any bet or wager, or, being a betting man or bookmaker or layer of totalizator or other odds, transacted any business relating to such calling in any public place, shall be guilty of an offence. And the by-law defined a “public place” as including any racecourse, recreation grounds, and place of public resort which for the time being is open to the public whether on payment of an entrance ‘oi; not. Oil tlio throe latter argu- / meats in the fifth ground of appeal must be determined against the appellant. Assuming that the racecourse was on 26tli and 27tli December a “public place,” the by-law was clearly good. Various cases (quoted) established that a lodal body might, under its powders to niako by-laws for the good government of a borough, prohibit a person from carrying on his calling as a bookmaker in a “public place,’.’ and that such a bylaw' was not unreasonable. That carrying on the trade of a bookmaker on a racecourse was likely to lead to public disorder, and that a

regulation prohibiting it made by a Jockey Club was effective, had also been held by the Court of Appeal. It was suggested that this by-law-worked unequally, as the totalisator was permitted by law to bo used. The answer to this was that “the use of the totalisator is when licensed by the Colonial Secretary permitted under certain conditions. This circumstance cannot render a regulation prohibiting the business of bookmaking upon a racecourse unequal in a legal sense. Here the by-law applies to all bookmakers when they are carrying on their trade as such, and the argument that because the Legislature has- recognised under certain conditions betting upon the totalisator it has also recognised that it is contrary to public policy to prohibit the trade of bookmaking is quite untenable.” The only question, therefore, for consideration was whether the Borough Council had power to apply the by-law in question to that portion of the reserve used as a racecourse when race meetings are being held by the Jockey Club. The racecourse is part of a public reserve, and. though for three days in the rear in the possession and under the control of the .Jockey Club, it is nevertheless vested in the Corporation. Is it, then, during those three days a “public place” within the borough? The Police Offences Act defined a public place as including every place of public resort open to a.nd used hv the public as of right, and the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 4831, included in the definition all

places wherever the public may as somble, whether money bo paid lithe public for. admission to suol places or not. After referring to 111 purposes for which the reserve migh legally be used, His Honor statci that the whole reserve remained i public reserve for recreation purposes, and being witliin the borongl tin, Connell had power by by-law tc prohibit such conduct upon the reserve as, taking into consideration the special purposes for which sucl; reserve may he used, is, in tlio opinion of the Council, detrimental to the order and good government of the borough. He was of opinion that the. Borough Council had power by this bylaw to prohibit the carrying on of the business of a bookmaker at all times upon this reserve, and therefore during race meetings held on tlio reserve by the Jockey Club. The appeal was dismissed with £7 i7s costs for the appellant. Mr. Quilliam accepted judgment for the respondent, and the appellant was unrepresented.