458 BETTING HOUSES. 



a " place" the locus in quo must be ejusdem generis with a 

 house, office, or room ; and it was also conteuded that 

 the iuclosure could not be said to have been used for 

 the purpose of betting, since the primary object for which 

 it was kept was foot-racing, &c., and it was not shown to 

 have been habitually used for betting. But the Court 

 (Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush, JJ.), were unanimous in 

 holding that the inclosure was a "place," and that the 

 appellant had permitted it to be used for the purpose of 

 betting, and the conviction was affirmed accordingly. 



This case and that of Easticood v. Miller would appear to 

 constitute a direct authority for saying that an inclosed 

 area of considerable extent may be a " place " within the 

 meaning of the Act, and that a person using it or permitting 

 it to be used for either of the purposes prohibited by section 

 1, is liable to conviction under section 3, even though the 

 unlawful user be upon one occasion only, and the primary 

 object for which it is kept be a lawful one (c). 

 Snowv.HUi. In Snow V. Hill {(l), the appellant had been convicted 

 upon an information charging him with using a certain 

 place, to wit, a field, for the purpose of betting with persoDS 

 resorting thereto. At the hearing it was proved that dog- 

 races were held in an inclosed field of about five acres in 

 extent hired for the purpose by a committee, the public 

 being admitted to a reserved portion of the field on pay- 

 ment of a small sum ; and that the appellant attended the 

 races, and moved about the reserved portion making bet* 

 with persons there. There was nothing to show that he 

 was a professional betting man. It was held that he did 

 not use any place for the illegal purpose charged in the 

 information, and the conviction was quashed accordingly. 

 At first sight it is somewhat difficult to reconcile the 

 decision in this case with those in Eastwood v. Miller and 

 Haigh v. Town Council of Sheffield, above referred to, but 

 when carefully examined the judgment would seem to turn 

 not so much upon the question whether the reserved portion 

 of the field was a " place," as upon the conduct of the 

 appellant, the Court being apparently of opinion that he 

 was merely one of the persons resorting thereto, and there- 

 fore not guilty of any oifence against the Act (e). 



(c) See also Jcnlcs v. Turpin, 13 M. C. 95; 52 L. T., Iv". S. 859; 33 



Q. B. D. 505 ; Itaj. v. Preedy, 17 \f. K. 475. 



Cox, C. C.433; Hornshjy.Saggett, [e) See Ueg. y. Preedy, 17 Cox, 



[1892] 1 Q. B. 20. C. C. at p. 443, per Hawkins, J. ; 



{d) 14 Q. B. D. 588 ; 54 L. J., Eornsby v. Raggett, [1892] 1 Q. B. 



