BETTING HOUSES. 449 



law (a) . And it is equally clear that the keeping of a common 

 Betting House has such a tendency. For it is found that 

 persons are tempted by such places, not only to spend more 

 of their own money than they can properly afford to lose, 

 hut also to embezzle the property of their employers. It 

 would appear therefore that by law a common Betting 

 House is a public nuisance. 



By the " Act for the Suppression of Betting Houses "(^), Act for the 

 various stringent provisions are made, and it would appear ^f ^'^Tf-^^o.'^ 

 that persons tising any " House, Office, Koom or other Houses. " 

 place," not excepting the Eoom at Tattersalls or New- 

 market, or the Stand at Epsom, for certain j)urposes men- 

 tioned in the Act, are liable to the Penalties which it 

 specifies (c). 



It is not quite clear what is meant by the word "w.s?>?^," " Using" 

 but as a " person using " a Place is distinguished from ^nder this 

 " persons resorting thereto," it is presumed that a person 

 using a Place within the meaning of this Act, must be a 

 person who uses the Place habitually not as a private 

 individual, but as a person who makes a business of at- 

 tending there for the purpose of holding himself out as 

 ready to bet with " persons resorting thereto," or to 

 receive money, &c., as the consideration for any assurance, 

 &c. to pay money, &c. " on any event or contingency of 

 or relating to any Herse Pace, or other Pace, Fight, 

 Grame, Sport or Exercise" (c). 



In the case of Doggett v. Caf ferns (d), the defendant, "Place" 

 a Betting agent and Bookmaker, was in the habit of within this 

 standing under certain trees in Hyde Park, and there 

 making bets on Horse Paces, and receiving deposits. 

 The plaintiff having made a bet with him, and paid his 

 deposit, brought an action for the return of the deposit, 

 and it was held by the Court of Common Pleas that the 

 defendant had brought himself within the meaning of this 

 Act, quite as much as if he had carried on his betting 

 transactions in a room or booth, and that the plaintiff 

 was therefore, under sect. 5 {e) entitled to recover back his 

 deposit in an action for money had and received. But this 

 decision was reversed by the Exchequer Chamber, and 

 Pollock, C. B., was of opinion that such a construction of 

 the Act was supplemental legislation ; but concurred with 



{a) See Rex v. Eoqier, 1 B. & C. {d) Bogqett v. Cat terns (Ex. Ch.), 



272; <S. C. 2D. & R. 431. 13W. 11.390; 19C. B., N. S. 767. 



[h) 16 k 17 Vict. e. 119, Ap- {e) 16 & 17 Vict. e. 119. See 



pendix. post, p. 453. 



[r) Ibid. ss. 1, 3. 

 O. GG 



