4G6 BETTING HOUSES. 



illegal betting which may take place on the premises upon 

 which such lawful business is carried on (c) . 



Skitter V. Bailey (d) is an instance of a person assisting 

 in the business of a betting-house keeper, although the 

 conviction was for using a room for the purpose of illegal 

 betting. In that case, a house was kept by T. and his two 

 sons, for the purpose of betting on horse-races. One day 

 T. and one son sat at a table in one room receiving bets, 

 and the appellant and another son of T. sat at a 

 table in another room doing likewise, whilst persons offering 

 bets stood around. It was held that there was evidence 

 that the appellant had some part in the management of the 

 business, and had therefore been rightly convicted. 



In Iteg. v. Cook (dd), the appellant was the man- 

 ager of a bicycle ground. Upon an occasion when some 

 bicycle races were being held there several bookmakers 

 were present pursuing their avocation amongst a large 

 crowd of spectators. Placards prohibiting betting were 

 posted about the ground by the appeUant. Some betting 

 took place about twenty yards from the winning-post, where 

 the appellant stood, acting as judge of the races. He was 

 aware that betting did and would take place, but could not 

 have wholly prevented it under the circumstances, although 

 he might have repressed it to a certain extent with the 

 aid of some constables who were present at his request. It 

 was held that as the business of the ground was not that of 

 illegal betting, he was not liable to conviction. 



A conviction which alleges that the defendant unlaw- 

 fully had the care and management of a place used for the 

 purpose of other persons betting therein is bad, as this 

 would apply to persons betting with one another in the 

 ordinary way, which is not interfered with or dealt with 

 by the Legislature (e). 

 Persons Upon a charge of keeping a house for the purpose of 



thereto betting with persons resorting thereto, it is unnecessary to 



show that such persons have physically resorted to the 

 premises, the purpose for which the house is kept being 

 that which is condemned by section 1, and the offence 

 may be proved by showing that the house was opened and 

 advertised as a betting house, although no person ever 

 physically resorted thereto. But where no other evidence 

 than that of resorting is offered in support of such a charge, 



(c) Se</. T. Cook, 13 Q,. B. D. 377; {dd) Ubi supra. 



51 L. T., N. S. 21 ; 32 W. E. 796. {e) Reg. v. Cooh, 13 Q. B. D. at 



{d) 37 J. r. 263. p. 381, per Hawkins, J. 



