THE BOOKMAKERS' CASES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 1 June 1907, Page 2

THE BOOKMAKERS' CASES.

APPEALS DISMISSED. UOlKH.'t.'H BY-LAW STANDS COOD. Mr. W. A. D. Banks, Registrar of the Supreme Court, on Friday iiflernoon read the decision of Mr. Justice Cooper iu the recent appeal on law and fact by Albert Champion against the decision of Mr. T. Hutchison, S.M., at Xew Plymouth. Air. Spencc, 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 2,81k January. PJO7, of betting on the New Plymouth Recreation and Racecourse on the 2lilh and 27th December, 1!)00, contrary to the provisions of by-law number 10 (2o) of the by-laws of the borough of New Plymouth.

Five grounds were stated in the notice of appeal. The first four were in respect of the fact of betting. The matter was re-hoard and the evidence established that, in fact, the appellant did on the dates mentioned use tlie reserve for the purpose of 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 a 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) ihat the by-law is contrary to the law and public policy of New Zealand; (e) that it is unreasonable; and (d) that it is uiKcrtain, and operates unequally. The reserve was, under the New Plymouth Recreation and Racecourse Reserve Act, 18S7, vested in the Corporation of the Ijoror.gh of New Pmylouth for purposes set forth, and section 3 enacted that the corporation should have control of the reserve, and should be tlie 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 eniillcd to use the racecourse for the purposes of holding race meetings on not exceeding three days in the year; and i lie 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 Mag-i-arate was a by-law purporting to have been made by the Corporation iu pursuance of the powers and provisions contained in tlie Municipal Corporations' Act, moo, and the amendments thereof. and "under all other Acts and powers enabling the Council in that behalf to amend and add provisions to the by-laws of tlie said Council." . The by-law enacted that any 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 belting man or bookmaker ior layer of totalisatoi or other odds, transacted any business relating to such calling in any public place, shall be guilty of"an offence. And the by-law deliued 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 lee or not. On the three latter aeguinents in the fifth ground of i appeal must be determined against the appellant. Assuming that the racecourse was on 2lith and 27th December a "public place," the by-law was clearly good. Various cases (quoted) established that a local body might, under its powers to make 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, hud also been held by the Court of Appeal. It was suggested that this bylaw worked unequally, as the totalisaior was permitted by law to be used. The answer to this was that "the use of the lotalisalor 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 bylaw applies to all bookmakers when they arc carrying on their trade as such, and

the argument that because the Legislature has recognised under certain conditions belling upon Urn totalisator it lias 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 year 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 deiined a public place as including every place of public resort open to and used by the public as of right, and the (laming and Lotteries Act. 1881, included in the delinition all places i■■!:• -revcr. the public may assemble, wh ' uioncv be paid by (he public for ' ■ -ion to such places or not. After .erring to |(lie purposes for which the reserve mHit I legally be used. His Honor stated licit' the wide reseiee remained a public rcsene for recreation purposes, aii-1 being within the borough the Council hail 'power by by-law fii prohibit such conduel, upon the' reserve as. Inking into conr.ideralion the special purposes' for which such reserve may be used, is. in the opinion of (he Council, detrimental to the order and good government of the

He was of opinion (hat the Jlorongli Council had power by this by-law to prohibit, the carrying oil of the'business of a bookmaker at all times upon this reserve, and therefore during race meetings held on the reserve by the Jockey Club.

The appeal was dismissed'with £7 7s costs for (he appellant. Mr. Quillium accepted judgment for the respondeat, and the appellant was unrepresented. tn reply to Mr. Quilliam. Mr. Itiddell, S.M., slated that he would give his decision on Wednesday next in the eases arising out of the T.J.O. autumn meeting.