460 



BETTING HOUSES. 



But need not 

 be a particular 

 spot. 



" Place " 

 inseparable 

 from user. 



What is 

 unlawful 



person carrying on his business there as a betting man, 

 might fairly and reasonably be said to be doing so in the 

 immediate presence of those so congregated together. . . . 

 It is true that in one or two of the cases expressions of 

 judges may be found (not material to the question before 

 them) which might at first sight be thought to indicate 

 their opinion to be that the word ' place ' in the statute 

 means some particular ascertained spot just sufficient for a 

 man to stand on." The learned Judge then refers to the 

 expressions of Lord Coleridge, C.J., in Bowes v. Femvick 

 [ante, p. 455), and Grove, J., in GaUatvaij v. Maries {ante, 

 p. 456), and continues : — " I can hardly think these learned 

 judges intended by these expressions to lay it down as law 

 that nothing would satisfy the word ' place ' unless it was 

 some particular spot on which a person stood, or which was 

 appropriated by him exclusively for his own use — as a stall 

 or standing at a fair or market would be — or that they meant 

 to convey more than this, that a ' place ' must be fixed and 

 ascertained. I can find no authority for saying that the 

 word ' place ' ought to have so limited an interpretation put 

 upon it; indeed there is direct authority to the contrary." 

 In support of this view he then proceeds to cite the cases of 

 Eastwood Y. Miller {ante, p. 457), and Haigh v. Town Council 

 of Sheffield {ante, p. 457), where, as we have already seen, 

 inclosed areas of considerable extent were held to be places 

 within the meaning of the Act. 



From the foregoing cases it will be seen that it is difficult, 

 if not impossible, to separate the question of a " place " from 

 that of user, in a satisfactory manner. Where the user of a 

 " place " for the purpose of illegal betting is charged both 

 questions have to be considered, as the question whether a 

 given locality is a place would appear to depend to some 

 extent on the use to which it has been put by the party 

 charged. In the case of a house or room, however, the 

 only question to be determined is whether the conduct of 

 the party charged is such as to constitute a user of the 

 premises for either of the purposes prohibited by the Act. 

 Whether there has been such a user is a question of fact to 

 be determined in each case by the circumstances surround- 

 ing it_(«). 



With reference to the question what is unlawful user 

 of a place under section 3, Hawkins, J., in the course of his 

 judgment in Reg. v. Preedy {J), says : " It was certainly 



(i) Seff. V. Preedy, 17 Cox, C. C. 

 at p. 443, per Hawkins, J. 



{; ) 17 Cox, C. C. at pp. 441, 442. 



