In Slatter v. Bailey[[382]] the house was kept by T and his two sons for the purpose of betting on horse-races. One day T and one son sat at one table in a room receiving bets, and in another room defendant and another son of T sat at another table also receiving bets, the betting being called out aloud. On the defendant, when apprehended, were found numerous entries relating to past and future races. Held, that as defendant was proved to have been assisting the principal in the business, that was evidence that he was using the house, and was taking part in the management within the Act.
Club Committee.
It will be remembered that in Turpin v. Jenks,[[383]] the committee of a club was held liable as having the management of the business.
Reg. v. Cook.
In the late case of Reg. v. Cook,[[384]] before Hawkins and A. L. Smith, JJ., defendant was convicted by justices for that he unlawfully had the care and management of a certain cricket ground opened and kept for the purpose of persons betting thereon, on certain events and contingencies relating to a bicycle race. He was merely the manager employed by the directors of a company. At a bicycle race betting men were in the grounds among 20,000 people, and they took down bets, and the odds were called out in a loud voice. Cook acted as judge of the race, and stood about twenty yards off from where the betting went on. Boards were put up that no betting would be allowed. The appellant knew there was betting though not taking part in it, but he could not have wholly prevented it, though with the aid of some constables he might have to some extent done so.
Form of conviction.
Hawkins, J., said, in giving judgment, that the conviction itself disclosed no offence at law. Defendant was convicted of having had the care and management of a certain place used for the purpose of other persons betting therein. This would include ordinary betting, which was not interfered with by the statute, as his lordship in the course of his judgment explains. Dealing then with the facts proved in the case, his lordship said that they did not bring the case within the statute. Before the Act of 1853 there existed in London and elsewhere a number of offices and houses in which a regular betting business was carried on, sometimes conducted by the owners and occupiers, sometimes entrusted to the care and management of clerks and servants. The method of business was to keep long lists of races about to take place, with the current odds placarded in the office, and the owner or manager received ready money from all sorts of persons to abide the event. This was what the Legislature designed to prevent. So much for betting houses, which are declared to be a common nuisance.
Section 3, however, is directed against certain individuals—owners, occupiers, and persons using the premises for the purposes mentioned—persons permitting them to be so used, and managers of the premises so used. In this case the management by the defendant was perfectly lawful. The Act only contemplates a taking a part or share in the management of an unlawful part of the business. His lordship was far from saying that no offence was committed on the grounds. There were clearly men on the grounds for both of the illegal purposes of betting mentioned in section 1. If these men went down to this place for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto, or even if they limited their operations to receiving money on deposit, they could be made responsible; there is ample evidence that those men used the grounds for both these purposes. Defendant did nothing but manage the lawful part of the business; and the mere knowledge that betting of an illegal character did take place in some part of the grounds, shows no offence within the statute.
Mr. Justice A. L. Smith said that if the manager of the grounds were held liable, it would be difficult to see how any man employed to sweep the paths at Lillie Bridge could escape responsibility if betting were proved to go on there.
III. What kind of betting is within the Act?