THE BOXING ENTERTAINMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2527, 14 June 1909, Page 6

THE BOXING ENTERTAINMENT.

THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

THE PROMOTER FINED

The judgment . in the seventy charges .arising out of the prosecution of William Crawford and over sixty others for promoting and being present at a boxing entertainment on the evening of Tuesday, May 25th, was delivered by Air. AY. A. Barton, S.M., on Saturday morning, in the Magistrate’s Court. Air. J. R. Kirk appeared for the defendants, 'and the judgment was .as follows: /‘Section 92 of the Justice of the Peace Act reads : ‘lf on tho hearing of a charge . for an offence punishable on summary conviction the Justices think that though the charge is proved, the offence was in Hie .particular ease of so trifling a nature that it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal punishment, the Justices m.ay dismiss the case.’ “The Police v. Crawford, Dixie, Healey, and Marks, charged with being engaged in a boxing contest for which a permit had not been obtained. “The Police v. Crawford and Healy, charged with holding a boxing contest for which a permit had not been obtained. “Tho Police v. / Crawford, charged with promoting a boxing contest for which a permit had not been obtained. “The Police v. Briscoe and others, charged with being present at a boxing contest for which a permit had not been, obtained. ' “The facts of the case are not in dispute'. It is contended by counsel for the defence, that tho defendant cannot bo convicted in the absence of proof of mens rea. After carefully considering tho evidence, and tho authorities quoted, I have come to the .conclusion that mens rea is not necessary in order to constitute an offence under the statute, upon which the information _in these cases are drawn. The question of the existence of a guilty mind is in my opinion only relevant for the. purpose of determining the question of punishment. lam of opinion that all the defendants have brought themselves within the provisions of the statute. In the case against Crawford, Healy, Dixie, and Marks, it is clear from tho evidence that,they were all engaged in a boxing contest for which a permit had not been obtained. “In reference to the charges against the other defendants for being present at a boxing contest, for which a permit had not been obtained, the evidence shows that in consequence of an advertisement- appearing in the public press and signed by Crawford, which stated that admission was to be free to tho boxing exhibition, the defendants went to the room indicated by the advertisement, and after several contests had taken place, a towel was laid upon the floor by a man named Hyland, who was one of the spectators, apd money was permitted to be thrown into the ring, whereupon Detective Rawle, who had been 'present during the contests, went forward and told Crawford that he had committed a breach of the Act, which he read to him, and after some discussion,' Crawford stepped forward to where the towel had been placed, and bowing to the audience, said ‘Thank you, gentlemen.’ It is true that the contest was advertised to be free, that is, that no charge would be made for admission to the room in which the boxing was to take, place, but it is usually understood in such cases that some form of voluntary contribution would be expected, and 'the spectators were in fact permitted to throw money into the ring, and by so doing a breach of the Act bad been committed.

“Boxing is a very good and manly exercise if not abused, and to prevent abuse the Legislature has’ thought fit to place certain restrictions upon public boxing contests, and it is necessary that the law relative thereto should be strictly observed. In the. present caso the contests appear to have been conducted in a most orderly manner, and there was nothing objectionable apart from the fact that the promoter failed to obtain the necessary permit, as required by section 58 of ‘The Police Offences Act, 1908.’ I shall record a conviction against defendant Crawford, who was the promoter of. the contest, and he will be fined in the sum of five shillings, without costs. “In reference to the other cases, I think it is inexpedient under all ■ the circumstances to inflict any punishment and therefore dismiss them under ihe provision of section' 92 of ‘The Justice of the Peace Act, 1908.’ “In my opinion the police acted rightly in bringing these eases before the Court, which has the effect of fully publishing the law relative to boxing contests, and therefore if similar cases are brought before me after this warning I shall deem it my duty to inflict substantial- -penalties upon offenders.”