BETTING HOUSES. 457 



There was no evidence of the ownership of the land ; it 

 was not iaclosed ; the public frequenting it were not charged 

 for admission ; and it was not sufficiently circumscribed or 

 defined to constitute a place. It was held, distinguishing 

 Doggett v. Catterns (z), that the justices ought to have 

 convicted, as the locality was sufficiently defined to con- 

 stitute a place within the meaning of section 3. 



In Eastwood v. Miller (a), the appellant was the occupier inclosed area. 

 of certain inclosed grounds, exceeding three acres in extent, JSastwood t. 

 in which a pigeon-shooting match, and afterwards a foot ' ' '"^' 

 race, took place, and into which the public were admitted 

 by ticket. Among the persons admitted to the grounds 

 were two bookmakers who, when the shooting match was 

 about to take place, were shouting out "20 to 2 on the 

 match." Two men went up to one of the bookmakers and 

 made a bet with him, paying a deposit and receiving a 

 ticket in exchange. Whilst the match was proceeding 

 another bet was taken, and persons were shouting all over 

 the grounds. The appellant could hear what the book- 

 makers and other persons said, but did not take any part or 

 say anything. Betting also took place on the foot-race. 

 It was held that there was evidence to justify the magis- 

 trates in coming to the conclusion that the inclosure was a 

 " place " within the meaning of the Act, and also that the 

 appellant permitted it to be used for the purpose of betting. 



In Haighy. Toimi Council of Sheffield {b), the appellant Saighv. 

 had been convicted of knowingly permitting a place of ^^'^ff^^^- 

 which he was the occupier to be used for the purpose of 

 illegal betting. At the hearing it was proved that he was 

 the tenant of a piece of inclosed ground used for cricket, 

 foot-racing, and other games and sports. On the day 

 named in the summons foot-racing took place in this 

 inclosure, to which persons were admitted on payment 

 of sixpence. Within the inclosure, and among the 

 spectators, some fifteen or twenty professional bettors stood 

 on chairs and stools in different spots, calling out the odds 

 on the various runners, and betting with different persons. 

 The appellant knew what was going on but took no steps 

 to prevent it, although he might have done so if he had 

 been so minded. On behalf of the appellant recourse 

 was again had to the argument that in order to constitute 



(z) Ante, p. 452. (5) L. E,., 10 Q. B. 102 ; 44 L. J., 



(«) L. E., 9 Q. B. 440 ; 43 L. J., M. C. 17 ; 31 L. T., N. S. .536 ; 23 



M. C. 139 ; 30 L. T., N". S. 716 ; W. E. 547. 



22 W. E. 799. 



