An umbrella may be a “place.”
In Bows v. Fenwick[[359]] an umbrella was held to be within the Act. Defendant was on a racecourse, standing on a stool which was covered by a large umbrella capable of covering several persons, the stock being made in joints like that of a sweep’s brush, so as to be taken in pieces. On the umbrella were written the defendant’s name and address. There was also a card exhibited on which were the words, “We pay all bets first past the post.” The umbrella was kept up whether the weather was wet or dry. Numerous bets were made by the defendant. It was argued that this case was like Doggett v. Catterns, the place which defendant occupied being public, and that no erection could constitute a place within the Act from which defendant could be ordered to move on. The Court held that this was a place within the Act. They considered it more like Shaw v. Morley than Doggett v. Catterns. In the latter case there was no fixed place within the park at which defendant was stationed. Here, the card and the umbrella with the inscription clearly indicated a fixed and ascertained place where the defendant carried on a prohibited business.
Enclosures.
In Eastwood v. Miller[[360]] the defendant was in occupation of a large enclosure of more than three acres, where a pigeon-shooting match was going on. The Court held that the fact of its being a large enclosure did not affect the question; and that it was a place in spite of the fact that there was no structure erected therein.
But the case is more important on the question of “user.” The same remark also applies to Haigh v. Sheffield,[[361]] which was another case of an enclosure used as a cricket ground. It was again argued unsuccessfully, that “place” meant something of the same nature as “office” or “house.” But it may now be taken as settled that any kind of enclosure, whether covered or not, with or without an erection, may come within the Acts.
A bookmaker on a stool in the grand stand.
Finally, we come to the case of Galloway v. Maries,[[362]] in which the Court went a step further in curtailing the bookmaker’s liberty of action on a racecourse.
A race meeting was held in Four Oaks Park, belonging to a company, admission being by payment. Defendant and another man A obtained entrance to a railed enclosure called the ring, attached to the grand stand. A stood on a wooden box not attached to the ground, and both he and defendant offered to make bets with people about, A receiving the money, and defendant entering the bets in his book. They remained in one place the whole time. The Court held that this was “a place” within the Act. The justices had submitted for their consideration—
Questions submitted to Court.
(1.) Whether the enclosure was “a place.”