462 BETTING HOUSES. 



hat, or adopt other singularity of dress, or may use a 

 placard or a flag, or exercise his voice to annouDce and call 

 attention to his readiness to het in the manner forhidden, 

 which of these methods he adopts is absolutely immaterial." 

 Persons The persons rendered liable by the statute are (1) the 



owner or occupier of any house, &c., using or permitting 

 any other person to use the same for either of the illegal 

 purposes, (2) a person using the same for either of such 

 purposes, and (3) any person having the care or manage- 

 ment of or in any manner assisting in conducting the 

 business of any house, &c., used for either of such pur- 

 poses (/). 

 User by As has already been seen, ante, p. 458, the occupier of 



occupier. inclosed grounds who uses, or permits them to he used for 



the purpose of illegal betting upon one occasion only, is 

 liable to conviction under section 3, even though the 

 primary object for which such grounds are kept is a lawful 

 one ; and the same remark applies to a similar user of a 

 house or room, with the additional fact that in the latter 

 case no question can arise as to the occupation of any fixed 

 and ascertained spot {m). 



In Foote v. Butler (n), an informer had paid two visits 

 to the appellant's house, and had made bets with him 

 on some races, money passing between them ; there was 

 further evidence that on the house being searched a number 

 of books and documents relating to betting were found, 

 and that certain remarks had been made by the appellant 

 which tended to show that he had recently used them. It 

 was held this was sufficient evidence to justify a conviction. 

 In Hornshy v. Raggett (o), it appeared that on five diffe- 

 rent days a bookmaker and his clerk were in the tap- room 

 of a beerhouse kept by the respondent, and used the same 

 for the purpose of betting with persons resorting thereto. 

 The respondent was present, and knew of and permitted 

 such use. The bookmaker and clerk did not occupy any 

 specific place in the tap-room, and had no interest or 

 property in the premises. It was held that the respondent 

 had knowingly and wilfully permitted a room to be used 

 for the purpose of illegal betting, and ought, therefore, to 

 have been convicted. 



In order to convict the occupier of a house of permitting 



{/) See 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, ss. 1, (n) 41 J. P. 792. 



3, ante, pp. 450, 451. (o) [1892], 1 Q. B. 20 ; 61 L. J., 



{m) Reg. T. Preedy, 17 Cox, C. C. M. C. 24 ; 40 "W. R. 111. 

 433. 



