THE BETTING PROSECUTIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8033, 20 January 1906, Page 2

THE BETTING PROSECUTIONS.

COUNCIL'S J HRISDICTION QUESTION Kl>. BY-LAWS ALLEGED TO BE ULTRA VIRES. The adjourned cases, on informations laid by the secretary ol the Tarin iki Jockey l.'lito. under the New I'lymoulh borough lir-laws. against six bookmakers, eh irgl ig (hem with unlawfully using a pu die place—the New I'lymoulh Reereati n and Racecourse reserve —for Ihe purpose of belling, at the Christinas niecliug of Die Club, came on for hearing ill. New I'lymoulh on Friday, before Mr T. Hutchison, •S.M. Mrljiiilliani appeared for the prosecuting Club, and Mr Speii te (Stratford) defended on behalf of th 1 defendants, I'alrick Flannagan, Daniel Caiuplull, md Sieve Falicy. The case against I'alrick Flannagan was l iken. Evidence of (he commission of the.

alleged olfmicc was gi. en by John Skinner, surveyor, and Detective Boddam, the testimony being similar to that adduced at the previous hearing of the eases against ltae, Conway, and MeAuully. Iu opening, Mr Spence intimated that he thought plaintiff's counsel would admit that Flanagan paid two shillings for, ami received ail admission ticket, and was admitted accordingly. Mr Quilliain admitted that Flanagan received his admission ticket, on the back of which were certain conditions. Mr Spenec's first point was that the borough by-law, under which the informations were laid, was inconsist-1 ent Willi and repugnant lo the New Plymouth Recreation and Racecourse Reserves Act. 1887. That Act, counsel contended, expressly gave the .Joekey Club power to pass by-laws for the regulation of order at race meetings, and (he Borough Council had no power lo do so, the power having expressly been taken away from the Council under the special Ad. The Legislature, he therefore held, had made it clear that the power to make by-laws is in the hands of the Jockey Club, and it is for the Borough Council to show where their power to make by-laws governing the racecourse reserve 'is derived from. How then did the Borough Council acquire their power:' Tt was clear the

Jockey Club could not delegate their power to make by-laws to the Council. [ Paters'in v. Canterbury Jockey Club.]

tin' Taranaki Joclcy (.'lull, however, tvii-il In delegate Ilu-ir powers, the secretary having laiil tlio informations? Ritersou's case showed llint the LegisInlitrf meant to pliioo the control of racing entirely iu the hands of the various Jockey Chilis, ami betting was surely an almost necessary incident of racing. Tin.' power to make similar bylaws coulil liol, he contended, be said to be vested both in the Jockey Club and the Borough Council. Supposing the Jockey Club were now to make a regulation allowing bookmakers to ply their calling, which w nld p'vail—the Jockey Club's re ;ul.it ion made under the Special Act. or the Borough bye-law made under tli • Municipal Corporations Act ! J The li • ,'islaturc never contemplated sucli nil inconsistency. The S.M. said it seemed to him that t he bye-law having been made under the Municipal Corporation Act, the whole (luestion resolved itself with this was the bye-law a good law under the Act. Mr Spence contended that the Council's power was absolutely excluded under the Special Art, and proceeded to argue thai the general powers of the Municipal Corporations Act—under; which the bye-law was made—were subservient to the special powers conferred 011 the Jockey Club under the Special Act. His Worship said he was not convinced that power was anywhere given by which the Borough Council byelaws could be pill into abeyance iu any part within its boundaries. Considerable argument here took place between Counsel and the Bench on this point. Mr Speuce quoted l!cx v. West wood to show that where two bodies have powers of making byelaws, one must give way to the other—the general to the specific. Moreover Miller v. McCarthy (N.Z. ease) shqwcdr that where there is a spcciaj.. liiw in a particular district, anil*'general law by a corpor.itjp#; "Hie special law prevails, ease he contended the powui>VT)f the Jockey Club (which had not' been availed of) must prevail against the Borough bye-laws, Mr Sponce contended that the Jockey Club possess the power to make a byelaw absolutely opposed to the Borough bye-law with reference to this particular portion of the .Recreation reserve, and could issue licenses to bookmakers in opposition to the Borough bye-laws. His Worship: The Borough byelaw then is absolutely nugatory. Mr Sponce: Yes. Hex v. Westwood showed that there could be an exclusion of general power under a speeial authority, and he argued that the power given under this Special Act was much, more specific than the wording of the general power under the Municipal Corporations Act. Counsel also contended that the amended byelaw, even apart from the last objection, was ultra vires of the Borough Council. The Council possessed no power to extend the definition ofpublic place" to

cover a racecourse as had been done in this case. He pointed out that the bye-law even prevented betting in one's bedroom in an hotel. The power to prohibit b'tling by live-laws had been

admitted in the following cases: lieiiiL'tl v. Berry, Jones v. Wallers, While v. .Morg-iii, Thomas v. Sutlers and olluvs, but only on the express grounds that the bye.law was lo prevent the obstruction or crowding of streets and footpaths. The same reasoning could not apply to a reserve, because as opposed lo a street the very object of a reserve was I hat people might congregate for games and sports. Here the Borough Council had gone lunch farther than the Legislature hail permitted them to go, and he did not think there was authority for such an extension of the definition " public place," which, he contended, had even gone beyond the definition in the Police OlVeiices Act, a definition that existed lor specific purposes. His Worship said lie was not going lo hold that a bye-l aw was bail and ultra vires simply because a portion of it might have gone beyond its power. Continuing, Counsel referred to Kitson v. Ash, the case of a live-law similar lo Hie present one, but there the Judges point out that the bye-law is made under a special Act (not in force in New Zealand), and doubt

whether it would be upheld under the Municipal Corporation Act, under which the present b.ve-law is made. Scot I v. I'illuier indicated clearly that the Courts are not disposed to extend the municipalities' powers to suppress betting. Borough live-lays applying to the racecourse reserve, he said, iu conclusion, could not be said to have been made lo prevent street obstriielion, but

aimed at morality, and it was clear that no bve-law could deal with morals. Mr (Juilliam was proceeding to say that he would only need lo refer to one or two points, when the S.M. intimated that his present impression was in favour of a conviction. If, after 'going through tlie authorities he fell it necessary lo call ou Mr Quilliam, he would do so. Division was reserved till Friday 20th inst.