Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

GrAWLER RACECOURSE
EJECTMENT.
Appeal Dismissed.
The Full Court—presided over by their
Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice
Homburg—delivered judgment on Tuesday
in the appeal case of .1 tinner v. the Gawler
Jockey Club.
Sir John Downer, K.C.,
with Mr. C. A. Edmunds, for the appellant.
and Mr. J- E. Andereon. with Mr.
S. R. Heseltine, for respondent.
The case
was one in which Sir John Downer moved
that the order for a new trial, made by
His "Honor Mr. Justice Gordon on September
3—on the grounds of misdirection of
the S.M. and mistaken rulings of the Local
Court of Adelaide on points of law—be
made absolute.
The Chief Justice
said
that plaintiff,
Junner, who was a betting agent, claimed
for £99 damages.
His case was put in two
ways—first, for assault and having been
given into custody;
and,
secondly, for
breach of contract to allow him to remain
on the racecourse on June 19, and for forcible
removal from the course.
The defence
had sought to justify what was done
under section 8 of the Gambling Further
Suppression Act of 1907. and under the special
terms contained
in
the face of the
ticket of admission
to
the" grand stand.
The Local Court had upheld the defence
on both grounds, and had given a verdict
for defendants.
There were 15 gentlemen
of the same profession as plaintiff on the
ground, and seeing that plaintiff had for
years been engaged in betting, it did not
require
a stretch of imagination to conclude
that he was there on that occasion
"meaning
business."
He
had a perfect
right
to be there on pleasure, unless he
were suspected of an act contrary to some
express provision
of
the
Gaining Acts.
Farquhar had not seen him receiving any
money, but bad reported to the secretary
that he suspected him of acting contrary
to the Gaming laws, and that he had concluded
be was receiving commissions and
putting them
on
the
totalizator.
His
Honor said he had carefully looked through
the Gaining Act to ascertain if receiving
a commission was a breach of those Acts.
He could find no other provisions making
such an Act unlawful other than those to
which
counsel
had
drawn
attention,
in
section
7
of
the
1907
Act,
and
sections
6
and
12 of
the
1897
statute.
On
the. first section mentioned
there was no evidence that there had been
anything to excite Farquhar's
suspicion
that plaintiff was there for the
purpose
of betting or wagering, and when the police
sergeant was told to remove him from
the course, Farquhar had said, '"1 don't
charge you with betting."
The gist of section
6 was the receipt of money for investment
on the totalizator, and there was
no evidence of anything to excite suspicion
in the mind of iarquhar in reference
to
the receipt of money.
Section 12 of the
1897 Act, dealt with the soliciting or incitement
to entrnst money for investment
on the totalizator, and the evidence
was
altogether silent of any suspicion of that.
Therefore, in his evidence on those points, j
Faxquhar had not suspected plaintiff "oil
bong engaged in or doing any act or thing!
in contravention of any of the provisions
of -the Gaming Acts."
What he had suspected
him of was receiving amounts and
placing them on the totaiizator.
There
might be moral obbquity in that, but the
Legislature had not made it unlawful.
He
was unable to agree with the S.M. that
the defendant's removal from the course
was justified by section 8 of the Gaming
Further Suppression Act.
The second part
of the defence was that the expressed condition
on
the face of the grand
stand J
ticked formed part of the contract.
If
that was incorporated in
the
conditions
for admission, plaintiff was out of Court.
The printed matter was evidently
there
to be read, the presumption that plaintiff
knew its terms had not been
rebutted,
and
he was no novice at his business.
His
Honor, after reviewing the precedent cases
cited by counsel, held that the issue of
the second ticket on payment of 2/6, admitting
to the saddling paddock, on the
giving up of the first ticket, was not in
substitution of the original contract, hut
was an extension of it. As the secretary
had said, the first ticket was given up as
part of the check. On the grounds mentioned,
the appeal would be dfsr-harged.
His Honor said that Mr. Justice Gordon
and Mr. Justice Homburg had concurred
with the judgment.
Appeal discharged, with £15 15/ costs.
$