Whitehurst v. Fincher[[368]] was a case of the user of a room, but the Court did not think there was any evidence of sufficient user for the illegal purpose, the person using it was not a bookmaker. In the late case of Hornsby v. Raggett[[369]] the Court held that user of the room for the illegal purpose was one of the offences specified in the Act, and it was not necessary that the person using it should confine himself to any one spot therein.
II. Persons liable.
Persons liable.
(1.) The owner, keeper or occupier (A), using the premises for the purpose of illegal betting, such as is described hereafter |Permitting.| (B), Permitting them to be so used; that is, if he connives at what he knows will result in illegal practices; as was said by Lord Blackburn in Haigh v. Sheffield.[[370]]... “It is clear that the magistrate came to the conclusion that the appellant knew that people resorted to the enclosure for the purpose of betting, and permitted foot-racing to go on and these betting men to come in, knowing the betting to be an ordinary consequence. The magistrate was right, therefore, in saying the appellant did permit the place to be used for betting, on the principle that a man must be taken impliedly to be answerable for what he knows to be the ordinary consequence of what he permits.”... At the same time, the case of Somerset v. Hart[[371]] shows that if actual knowledge be not proved, it must be shown that defendant wilfully shut his eyes, or connived at what was going on.
Person using.
(2.) Persons using the same for illegal betting.
Two questions arise here:
(a.) What amounts to “user”?
(b.) Who is the “person using.”
User.