452 



BETTING HOUSES. 



What is a 

 "place." 



Doggett v. 

 CatUrns. 



aimed at by the first part of the section may or may not be 

 ready-money betting ; whilst the second part is more 

 directly aimed at ready-money betting (i). If a person 

 uses a part of a house, e.g., the bar of a public-house, for 

 the purpose of meeting the persons with whom he intends 

 to bet, he is using it for the purpose of betting with persons 

 resorting thereto, and may therefore be conyicted under the 

 first part of the section, even if the betting is ready-money 

 betting, and the money is always handed over to him out- 

 side the door of the house (/c). But in order to sustain a 

 charge under the second part of the section it is necessary 

 to prove the receipt of money by way of deposit on bets inside 

 the house alleged to have been used for the purpose (/). 



A licensed person who opens, keeps, or uses, or suffers his 

 house to be opened, kept, or used, in contravention of this 

 Act, is liable to conviction under section 3, notwithstanding 

 the provisions of section 17 of the Licensing Act, 1872, 

 which imposes a lower penalty for the like offence («;). 



What constitutes a "place" within the meaning of the Act 

 is a question which has several times occupied the attention 

 of the Courts. Whether or not a locality alleged to have 

 been used for either ofthe purposes prohibited by section lis 

 such a place, is a question of fact to be determined by the 

 tribunal before which the matter comes for adjudication, 

 having regard to the circumstances of each particular case («). 



In the case of Doggett v. Catterm (o), the defendant, a 

 betting agent and bookmaker, was in the habit of standing 

 under certain trees in Hyde Park, and there making 

 bets on horse races 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 section 5 (p), entitled to recover back his deposit in 

 an action for money had and received. But this decision 



(i) Meg. V. WuHon, [1895] 1 

 Q. B. 227, 230; 64 L. J"., M. C. 

 74; 72 L. T., N. S. 29— C. C. E. 

 per Lord Eussell, C.J. 



ih) Ibid. 



(i) Davis V. Stephenson, 24 Q. B. 

 D. 529; 59 L. J., M. C. 73; 62 

 L. T., N. S. 436 ; 38 W. E. 429. 



(m) Sim V. Pay, 58 L. J., M. C. 

 39 ; 60 L. T., N. S. 602 ; 53 J. P. 



420. See also ante, p. 440. 



(n) Reg. v. Frecdij, 17 Cox, C. C. 

 433, at p. 438, per Hawkins, J. 



(o) Doggett v. Gatterns, 19 C. B., 

 N". S. 765; 34 L. J., C. P. 159; 12 

 L. T., N". S. 355 ; 13 W. E. 290- 

 Ex. Ch. 



{p) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119. See 

 post, p. 468. 



