BETTING HOUSES. 4G5 



that he was rightly convicted, Lord Eussell, C. J., saying : 

 "I am quite clear, and I understand that the other 

 members of the Court agree with me, that if a person 

 uses the bar as the defendant did, for the purpose of 

 meeting the persons with whom he intends to bet, he is 

 using it for the purpose of betting with persons resorting 

 thereto, even if the money is always handed over to him 

 outside the door of the house." 



It would seem, however, that a person who, not being a 

 professional betting man, makes casual bets with the persons 

 he comes across at any house, &c. is not a person using the 

 same for the purpose of betting with persons resorting 

 thereto, but rather one of the resorters, and is therefore 

 not guilty of any offence against the Act. In Snoiv v. 

 Hill {z), the defendant went to a reserved portion of an 

 inclosed field where races were being held, and walked 

 about making bets with various persons there ; and it was 

 held that he was not using a place for the purpose of 

 illegal betting. And the same conclusion was arrived at 

 in Wliitehurst v. Pincher (a), where the defendant went on 

 three successive days to the bar-room of a public house, 

 and made casual bets with persons he met there. In 

 neither of these cases was there any evidence that the 

 defendant was a professional betting man, and the Court 

 evidently regarded them merely as persons resorting, and 

 therefore not within the purview of the Act. 



A member of a bond fide club who habitually bets there 

 with other members is not liable to conviction for using 

 the club premises for the purpose of betting with persons 

 resorting thereto, even though he be a professional book- 

 maker, and the club be formed for the purpose of the 

 members betting with each other (S) . 



With regard to the liability of any person having the Person hnyin^ 

 care or management of the business of any house, &c., ^'^ manuge- 

 used for either of the purposes prohibited by section 1, it has 

 been held that the word " business " means the business of 

 a betting-house keeper, and that the Act was not intended 

 to apply to any person having the care or management of 

 a lawM business who takes no share or part in any 



(z) 14 Q. B. D. 588; 54 L. J., Q- B. 203; 64 L. J., M. C. 238; 



M. C. 95 ; 52 L. T., N. S. 859 ; 33 72 L. T., N. S. 728 ; 43 W. E. 666. 



W. E. 476. See also Oldham v. Ramsdeii, 44 



{a) 62 L. T.,N. S. 433 ; 54 J. P. L. J., C. P. 309 ; 32 L. T., N. S. 



565. 825. 



[b) Downes v. Johnson, [1895] 2 



O. H H 



