RACECOURSE TRESPASSING

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2765, 21 March 1910, Page 5

RACECOURSE TRESPASSING

INTERESTING DECISION. I rPKR Prkss Association.] WELLINGTON, March 19. Persons (other than those so designated by statute) classed as ‘’undesirables” by the rules of racing do not become trespassers on a racecourse until the license conveyed by their ticket of admission has been revoked. Therefore they must be ordered off a second time. Sucli was the effect of a decision given by Mr. J. G. Riddell, S.M., to-day, in the cases in which J. M. Cummins and J. H. Williams were charged under fou r separate headings With trespassing on the Trentham racecourse, during the progress of the Wellington Racing Club’s January meeting. The informant, in each case was Jas. Walden, racecourse detective. His Worship gave no raling'upon the question or whether or not the defendants could be properly classed as “undesirables,” deciding the case upon the question of law raised by counsel for defendants. His Worship, in giving judgment, recalled that each defendant bought a ticket, which admitted him to the course unconditionally. His entry was therefore lawful. When he was, on each day. told to leave it could not be said that he was, at that instant, a trespasser. In Loughton v. Guinness it had been decided that a per. son must be a trespasser at tile time the warning was given to bring him within the statute. In the present case it had not been proved that either defendant was a trespasser when he was warned to leave the course. If either, or both, were trespassers then there was no proof of a second warning and a refusal to leave. His Worship added that under the. circumstances it was unnecessary for him to decide whether, being officials of'an unregistered racing club constituted either defendant an undesirable character if found on a registered club’s racecourse, when their reputations as citizens was otherwise satisfactory. Each information must be dismissed. Each defendant was alloi'ed two guineas costs. Counsel for defendant applied Tor expenses of witnesses called to give evidence as to cnaraeter. Plaintiff’s counsel reminded the Court that he had. in opening the case, expressivelv admitted the good character of the defendants. The question at issue to that matter, had His V, orslnp felt called upon to decide the point, was merely whether informant correctly interpreted- the instructions of his emplovers. His Worship said that m allowing the amount of costs he bad been influenced by the fact that proceedings had been instituted by a body which should have been aware of l 15 legal position. He declined to allow witnesses’ expenses.