Important Betting Decision.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 710, 5 January 1903, Page 4

Important Betting Decision.

In legal circles it was generally conceded that an adverse verdict would be . given against the stewards of the Wellington Racing Club in their action against Solo- « mon Lewis, bookmaker,.claiming £SO for trespass on the Hutb racecourse. In delivering judgment, the Chief justice said that under the wide powers granted by sub section 6, and considering how such wide powers had been construed in recent English cases cited during argument, he r was of opinion that a regulation preventino a bookmaker plying bis trade or shouting or crying betting odds at prices ] was within the power of the trustees. He was also of opinion that the trustees could lawfully pass a regulation declaring that if such a regulation was violated the offender could be ejected as a trespasser, the right of admission could, on such an offence being committed, be put an end to, and the offender, once excluded, not be readmitted on the day of his offence. All such regulations, he was of opinion, were within the powers of the trustees. r lhe regulations made by the trustees of the Hutt racecourse went beyond such powers, but left to tho Racing Club a licensing or dispensing power. The Racing Club had under their power to eject or admit, as tho club thought lit. This might be a very proper power lo clothe tho club with, but in His Honor's opinion the statute did not permit trustees to vest such a discietion in an outside body. He doubted even if the trustees could differentiate between bookmakers, allowing some to ply their calling and some not; some to shout, etc., and some not. Their regulations must be laws and there must be equal treatment of all. They might have power to demand a , greater fee from a bookmaker who was ; allowed to ply his trade than from one of I the public or from a bookmaker who did ; not ply his trade, but the Court doubted ) if they could go further. The trustees ) might also allow a hawker or a fruiterer, • etc., to peddle his goods in tho enclosure and charge a fee for such permission, but 1 His Honor doubted if a regulation to allow ) for example, all who were named Smith 5 to peddle goods and to deny tho same privilege to anyone named Brown would -- Be valid. So the trustees might, on payJ ment of fees, allow booths for refreshment 0 to bo erected, but their regulations must u provide for the treatment of all citizens 'j- on a basis of equality, and must not vost 0 a dispensing power in an outside body like a racing club. To do so would leave a racing, club to .regulate admission and L ~ practically repeal tho provisions of the 0 statute as to the trustees making regulaL ” tions, and would be contrary to what was decided in tho case of Paterson v. the „ Canterbury Jockey Club. The provisions in both regulations 29 and 80, granting such discretion to a racing club, made tho regulations, in His Honor’s opinion, inq valid, and these regulations being invalid [lj defendant was not a trespasser.