BETTING ON A RESERVE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8042, 1 February 1906, Page 2

BETTING ON A RESERVE.

BOOKMAKERS CONVICTED. AN APPEAL PROBABLE. ] Mr T. Hutchison, S.M., delivered ' judgment at the S.M. Courl, New Ply- I mouth, on Wednesday, in the eases against bookmakers charged with betting in the Reserve adjoining the grandstand enclose at, the racecourse during the Taranaki J.C. Xiuas meeting, contrary to the provision of the New Plymouth Borough bye-laws. Convictions were recorded against R-ie, Conway, Me.Vnilly and Flanagan, each being lined £2 and £1 14s 8s costs. In giving judgment, the S.M. said he had little doubt on the proved faels, and the law relating thereto, thai the defendants ought to be convicted. The main contention made for the defence was that the Borough byelaw, under which the information was mule, was repugnant to Ihe Special Local Act under which the itccrcalion aud Racecourse Reserve was vested in tiie Borough of New Plymouth. The contention of the defence briefly was that the Reserve, though a part of the Borough, is excluded from the Councils' jurisdiction as a local body, and even their control of it as trustees under the Reserves Act of 1885 is liable to be displaced as often as the Jockey Club hold a meeting upon it. The S.M. held that in his opinion such a contention was untenable, and the local Act does not in any degree derogate from the Council's power to legislate by laws for the eood Government of r.lie

Borough under the Municipal Coporations Act IUOO. A by-law passed liy trustees under the Reserve Act 18S5 tor the management of a lleservc, and a by-law passed by a Borough Council under the Municipal Corporation Act for the good government of a borough, are, said the S.M., widely different things. They are really not comparable; the one .is a mere regulation for the due management of a Reserve, and the other is a local law, obedience to which is enforced by penalties. The difference was pointedly stated in Gray v. Sylvester, 01 J.P, 807, and he held that the present by-law is operative over the whole Borough. It had also been urged for the defence that the law ought to contain words limiting the 1 offence to Acts done to the annoyance , of the public or the like. This qualification, it was true, was at one time • regarded as essential. But apart from ; the fact that the " Municipal Cor- • poraliou Act, 1U()0" greatly amplifies , and enlarges the Council's powers to make by-laws so that decisions upon . the Knglislr Statute could be inapplicable by a number of recent cases, it i appeared to him that tins' particular qualification could no longer bo maintained, The leading case upon the principles of interpretation to be ap- [ plied to by-lavs made by local bodies (Krusc v. Johnson, 'l'l 8., 1)1) 1 rejected it-: as Lord llussell in his judgment in that case said that not ' only would the absence of such a qualification not make the bye-law ' invalid, but its presence would make the bye-law ineffective. He quoted ' other cases to show that it had been ' held not to be necessary to show by evidence that there was any annoyance caused to passers-by or others. Summing up, he held that the bye- ' law, then, is in good form and it is also good in its subject matter. A series of , cases has established that a bye-law " against frequenting a street or other public placp for the purpose of betting, is a valid one. The byo-law now in ' question contains an extended definition of the phrase " public place." Collating this definition with the definitions of the same phrase appearing in the "Police Offences Act,' 1884," and the "Gaining ami Lotteries Act, 1,887," the deliuition in the bye-law is somewhat fuller ; in particular it specifies the word " room." Upon this had been founded a further contention that the bye-law is ultra vires, because il purports to extend the meaning of " public place" beyond what the statute law Warrants. Assuming that thai contention was good, the S.M, held that the bye-law is plainly severable, and the obnoxious word or words could be rejected without in the least disturbing the grammatical integrity of the byelaw. There is, he added, plenty of authority for dealing witli bye-laws in this way. In concluding this judgment, the S.M. said he was of opinion the defence entirely failed. On the application of Mr Koy, who received judgment for the defence ou behalf of .Mr Spence, the cases against Pahey and Campbell, which have yet to be heard, were adjourned for three weeks, to allow time for considering the question of lodging an appeal against the judgment,