BETTING HOUSES. 463 



it to be used for the purpose of the receipt of money by 

 way of betting, it is necessary to prove the actual receipt of 

 such money inside the house in question (ji). But it is im- 

 material whether such receipt is through the post or from 

 persons resorting thereto (q). 



A bond fide commission agent who keeps or uses an office 

 for the purpose of undertaking commissions to make bets 

 on credit for the public at large, is clearly not within the 

 Act, as he does not bet himself, but executes his clients' 

 •commissions at Tattersall's or some other betting club. But 

 a person who, although he holds himself out as a commis- 

 sion agent, receives money on deposit on bets on horse- 

 races, and pays his clients their winnings without naming 

 any principal as advancing the money for such purpose, is 

 liable to conviction for keeping his office for receiving money 

 on an undertaking to pay money on the event of horse- 

 races within the meaning of section 1 ; and this, notwitli- 

 standing that he deducts a percentage from the winnings 

 for commission, for his conduct indicates his intention to be 

 responsible for the payment of the bets, and that he is really 

 the principal (r). 



The racing coupon competitions as ordinarily carried out 

 by the proprietors of sporting newspapers, do not amount to 

 betting transactions, even though a separate payment is 

 required in respect of each coupon sent in after the first, 

 which is supplied gratis with a copy of the paper ; and the 

 proprietor of such a paper is therefore not liable to conviction 

 for using the publishing office for either of the purposes 

 prohibited by section 1 (.s). 



It would appear that it is not essential to the user of a Person 

 house, &c., for the purpose of illegal betting, that it should ^"^S- 

 have an occupier, or that the person who uses it for the illegal 

 purpose should have permission so to do from either owner 

 or occupier. To again adopt the language of Hawkins, J., 

 in his judgment in Beg. v. Preedy (t) : " The right or title 

 to be upon the place seems to me to be utterly immaterial, 

 if in fact there is an illegal user of it. . . . Nothing 

 could be easier than to evade the operation of section 3 if 



(p) Davis V. Stephenson, 24 Q. B. 39 "W. E. 540 ; 65 J. P. 727 ; Stod- 



D. 529. dart v. Sagar, [1895] 2 Q. B. 474 ; 



(?) Wright V. Clarke, 34 J. P. 64 L. J., M. C. 234. These cases 



<;6l. have already been more fully noticed 



(r) Ibid. -when dealing with the subject ol 



(s) Caminada v. Mutton, 60 L. J., Lotteries, ante, pp. 433, 434. 



M. C. 116; 64 L. T., N. S. 572 ; {t) 17 Cox, C. C. at p. 441. 



