4^64 BETTING HOUSES. 



a person could defend himself upon the ground that he 

 was a mere trespasser on the place used. If such were the 

 law a man might locate himself at the corner of a street, 

 or in an unoccupied shed, or on a vacant piece of ground 

 on a railway platform, and there carry on his hetting opera- 

 tions with impunity, if only he did so without the know- 

 ledge of the owner or occupier. "Whereas if he did so with 

 the permission of the owner or occupier, hoth would be 

 Hable to a penalty." 



In order to support a conviction for using a house, &c., 

 for the purpose of illegal betting, it is unnecessary to prove 

 that such house, &c., has been used for the illegal purpose 

 pieviously to the occasion ia question. In other words, 

 the illegitimate user forbidden by section 3 is not neces- 

 sarily that of a house, &e., which is already a common 

 nuisance and a common gaming house under sections 1 

 and 2. It is also immaterial that the principal user of the 

 house is for a legitimate purpose (?«). 



Where certain persons, who were ostensibly bookmakers, 

 went to the bar of a public-house on several occasions, and 

 carried on their business by betting with persons resorting 

 thereto, it was held that they were liable to conviction for 

 using a " room " or " place " for the purpose of illegal bet- 

 ting. And it seems that they would have been equally 

 liable if they had done so upon one occasion only (x). 



In Eeg. v. Worton {//), the defendant was convicted on 

 an indictment charging him with using the bar of a beer- 

 house on three different days, for the purpose of betting 

 with persons resorting thereto. It was proved that on 

 each of the three days the defendant was in the .bar, and 

 a number of persons came in, took slips of paper which 

 were hanging on the wall, wrote on the slips the names of 

 the horses they wished to back, wrapped up in the slips the 

 money they staked, and handed the slips with the money 

 inclosed to the defendant. Usually the defendant went 

 outside, and received the slips and money on the doorstep 

 of the house, but on one of the three days he received 

 two slips with money inclosed, in the bar. It was held 

 that there was evidence to go to the jury that the defendant 

 had used the bar for the purpose of betting with persons 

 resorting thereto on each of the three days, and, therefore, 



(«) Seff. V. Freedy, 17 Cox, C. C. son, 56 J. P. 182. 

 433. (2/1 [1896] 1 Q. B. 227 ; 64 L. J. 



{x) Reg. V. Preedij, 17 Cox, C. C. M. C. 74 ; 72 L. T., N. S. 29. 



433. Bee also McWilliam t. Daw- 



