Illegal betting.
The Act prohibits two kinds of transactions:—
(1.) Betting with persons resorting thereto;
(2.) Receiving money on deposit or ready money betting.
(1.) With respect to the kind of betting that is within the Act considerable uncertainty has always been felt owing to the lack of decisions on the subject. In the above case of Haigh v. Sheffield it was observed by Lush, J., that the statute was intended to deal, not with the ordinary practice of betting or wagering, but with a more degenerate form of gambling, and one of a more demoralizing tendency. |Betting with persons resorting thereto.| At the same time his lordship does not explain exactly what kind of betting is affected by the statute. |Oldham v. Ramsden.| A case which really does throw some light on the matter is Oldham v. Ramsden,[[385]] though the grounds of the decision are not very clear. But it was there held that a club where the members habitually bet with one another is not within the Act.
It is very common to hear the question asked, why is Tattersall’s, &c., tolerated when the betting houses are suppressed? Two suggestions which have been made are worthy of notice:—
(a.) That the Act does not apply to bonâ fide clubs limited in numbers where the members are selected in the usual way. |Private clubs.| It would seem, however, that since the decision in Jenks v. Turpin, that a club or private house may be a common gaming house that this distinction is not sound, and that the suggestions in Crockford v. Maidenhead[[386]] must be considered as overrated.
(b.) The other and most general impression is that the Act does not apply except to ready money betting. The principal judicial dictum which gives colour to this view is that of Mr. Justice Blackburn in Haigh v. Sheffield,[[387]] where he expressly leaves the question open whether the place must not, to be within the Act, be kept for the purpose of the particular kind of betting mentioned in the preamble to the Act, viz., receiving money on deposit.[[388]] Anyhow, in this case, as in Bows v. Fenwick and Eastwood v. Miller, there was evidence of deposits having been paid. “It may well be,” said his lordship “that the Legislature intended to confine it to that kind of betting, leaving it to future legislation to extend the enactment if necessary.”
Act not confined to ready money betting.
It is, however, submitted that this is not the correct view of the matter. The Act speaks not only of receiving money on deposit but of “betting with persons resorting thereto.” The real meaning of these words is betting indiscriminately with all comers, that is to say, where in any place, house, or club one or a limited number of persons are the centre of every betting transaction that takes place, or, so to speak “hold the hat” against all the rest, that is a species of betting that the law prohibits, whether money passes at the time of making the bet or not. That this was the intention of the Act was clear from the speech of Sir Alexander Cockburn in bringing the Bill before the House of Commons.[[389]] |Tattersall’s not within the Act.| It was not, he said, intended to interfere with Tattersall’s and such like places, where persons met and bet amongst one another—where anyone is free to bet with anyone else.