456 



BETTING HOUSES. 



box within 

 ring. 



Gallaway v. 

 Maries. 



Defined spot 

 in open space. 

 Liddell t. 

 Lofthouse, 



panion, having paid for admission, were in a railed in- 

 closure of the grand stand at a race-meeting. The 

 companion stood on a small wooden box not attached^ to 

 the ground, and he and the respondent called out offering 

 to make and making bets with other persons. The 

 companion received the money for bets made, and the 

 respondent booked the same. They stood together in one 

 place within the enclosure during the races; and it was 

 held that the fixed and ascertained spot, defined in the 

 inclosure by the box at which the respondent orally adver- 

 tised his willingness to bet, was a " place " used by him 

 for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto ; 

 Grove, J., in the course of his judgment, saying : " I think 

 all the cases show that a ' place ' to be within the statute 

 must be a fixed ascertained place, occupied or used so far 

 permanently that people may know that there is a 

 person who stands in a particular spot indicated by a 

 certain definite mark with whom they may bet. I do not 

 decide whether a person standing on a carriage step or in 

 a circle where the turf was cut away, or where a little 

 heap of stones was put down during the races, would be 

 within the Act if he offered to bet there. But I am far 

 from saying that he would not be so. Here, however, in 

 my opinion, was a place within the meaning of the Act." 



Liddell v. Lofthouse [y) was an appeal from a decision 

 of justices dismissing an information under section 3 against 

 the respondent for using a certain open space of ground on 

 the bank of the river Tees, called Hubback's Quay, for 

 the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto. It 

 appeared that upon a part of this open space a timber 

 hoarding for advertisements had been erected some three 

 years previously, which was supported by some sixteen 

 stays driven into the ground at regular intervals. During 

 three days of the Ascot race-meeting, the respondent took 

 up his position at one of these stays, leaning against it, and 

 using it as a rest for his body, and was there seen to 

 make bets. He was not seen to bet on other portions of 

 the quay, the whole of which, including the site of the 

 hoarding, was open to the public. For the appellant it was 

 contended that the respondent was using a place for the 

 purpose of betting, and only went to this particular place 

 to make a book on the races. For the respondent it was 

 contended that this was not a place within the Act. 



(y) [1896] 1 Q. B. 295 ; 31 L. J., N. C. 129 ; 40 S. J. 278. 



