BETTING HOUSES. 453 



was reversed by the Exchequer Chamber, and Pol- 

 lock, C.B., was of opinion that such a construction of the 

 Act was supplemental legislation ; but concurred with 

 the judges in the Court below in thinking that a mere 

 spot, although not a "house," "office" or "room," would 

 not alone prevent it from being a place within the Act. 

 But he thought it must be a place capable of having an 

 owner or occupier, which that was not. There the defen- 

 dant resorted to a spot by a tree. The crowd might push 

 him away in moving about. There was no fixity of tenure 

 even for the daytime. He had no more exclusive occupa- 

 tion of the spot than anyone else in the park. 



Crompton, J., Channell, B., and Blackburn, J., were of 

 the same opinion. But Bramwell, B. (Mellor, J. and 

 Piggott, B., concurring), whilst agreeing that the judgment 

 should be reversed, did so on another ground, viz., that the 

 locality in question was not ascertained, and therefore did 

 not constitute a " place " within the meaning of the Act. 



Boggett v. Catterns was considered by Hawkins, J., in 

 Reg. V. Preedy {q), saying that the case " has often been 

 cited as deciding that a man who, day after day, at a table 

 placed under a tree in Hyde Park, carried on his business 

 of betting, receiving money in advance on bets on horse 

 races, could not be legally convicted under section 3. It is 

 quite true that there are expressions used in the judgment 

 in the Exchequer Chamber which atford colour to that 

 notion. Carefully considered, however, the case will be 

 found to decide nothing of the sort. It was not the case 

 of a prosecution under section 3 at all, but was an action 

 brought under section 5 of the Act to recover back a sum 

 of money which the plaintiff had deposited with the defen- 

 dant on bets on horse races." And after referring to sec- 

 tions 4 and 5 of the Act (as to which see post, pp. 467, 468), 

 continuing : " Not a word was said in either of those two 

 sections as to recovering back money received by a person 

 merely using the house or place. As, therefore, money 

 can only be recovered back from the owners or occupiers 

 or persons acting for them, it stands to reason that it is a 

 condition precedent to the recovering back of the money, that 

 the person from whom it is sought to be recovered shall be an 

 owner or occupier of the house. This accounts for the 

 opinion expressed by Pollock, C.B., and assented to by 

 Crompton, J., Channell, B., and Blackburn, J., that a place 



{q) 17 Cox, C. C. 433, at pp. 440, 441, 



