The Sun.
London, England, 1865-10-03 00:00:00

Putting Down the Betting Houses.

At the Guildhall Police-court, yesterday, Mr. Charles
Bush, of No. 2, Bell-yard, Gracechurch- street, was sum-
moned before Mr. Alderman Phillips by Mr. Alfred Laurence
Foster, superintendent of the City Police, for keeping a
room fur the purpose of betting with persons resorting
thereto upon horse-races.

Mr. Poland, instructed by the City solicitor, prosecuted ;
and Mr. Metcalfe, instructed by Mr. Thomas Beard, de-
fended.

Mr. Poland having stated the case very shortly, called
Thomas Griffiths, who said—l am a police-constable. I
went to No. 2, Bell-yard, Gracechurch-street, on the Gth of
August, and again on the 10th. On the ground floor there
is a furniture shop, and the defendant's office is on the first
floor. The name of Mr. Bush was painted in black letters
on the door-post. There was an officer of the name of
Warren with me. When I went there wore about 15 or 16
men in the room, and a person seated at a desk with a book
in his hand. The defendant was in the room taking money,
and there was a case containing racing-lists there; it was
for the Stewards' Plate and the Reading Stakes. There
were also lists of other horse-races, with the odds. I saw
one man point to the name of a horse in the lists and give
the defendant a sovereign. The defendant then communi-
cated with a man at a table, who had a book, and he then
made an entry in it. One man who came into the room said,
" I will back Enclsleigh." I saw him point to a horse-list,
and ho whispered something to the defendant, who said to
the bookmaker, "Enter 10 to 4on Eudsleigh." An entry
was made, and I saw the man take a £5-note from his
pocket, which he gave to the defendant, who returned him
£l. I asked him the odds on Pearl Diver for the Stewards'
Plate, and he said, " Three to one." I went again on the
11th of August, and each time I saw the defendant there
and several other persons.
This evidence was confirmed by Robert Warren, police-
constable 552.

Mr. Metcalfe contended that the act was never intended to
put a stop to betting which was conducted in a proper and
legitimate manner, otherwise if the Legislature had intended
to suppress betting proceedings would be taken against Tat-
tersall's. His client was a highly respectable man, was a
member of Tattersall's and also of the Victoria Club, and
he could not see that the act of Parliament was formed
more for the suppression of betting in the City than it was
for the West-end. Mr. Metcalfe then argued that the money
might have been received for other pUrposes, such as in
payment of a debt incurred on a previous race, or as money
received for re-investment.
Mr. Alderman Phillips—lt is quite plain to me that no
person would bet 10 to 4on a race which bad come off. If
Messrs. Tattersall came into the City they would be dealt
with in the same way. The fact is these betting offices are
public nuisances, and I think the magistrates are quite right
in the course they have taken for their suppression. I shall
fine the defendant £2O and £2 costs.
The fine was paid.

Mr. George Wilshire, of the Blue Last, No.l, Broadway,
Ludgate-hill, also appeared to a summons for allowing
betting in his house wilfully and knowingly.
In this case Mr. Lewis; jun., defended.
'Thomas Griffiths.gave evidence as to seeing two betting
men with books in the bar, and that a man came from the
parlour and said that there was a policeman in private
clothes there, on which the defendant said, "Has any
money passed ?" and being assured that none had passed,
he said, "All right; they cannot do anything to me, as 1
don't see money pass." A bet was made on a horse named
Suspicion for the Goodwood Stakes.

Mr. Lewis said he would take the evidence of the wit-
ness as entirely confirmed, and would first go upon the act,
that RR the defendant did not himself bet with the other
parties it did not apply to him. It stated distinctly that
the landlord must not be found betting with those who
came to the house. He should also submit that there
was insufficient proof, inasmuch as the Court would
scarcely convict a licensed victualler of wilfully and know-
ingly permitting betting in his house merely because one
bet had been made in ono of the compartments of his bar.
The summons was dismissed on the ground of insuffi-
cient evidence as to wilfully and knowingly allowing
betting in his house.
Mr. Robert Francis Beeton of the Nottingham Castle,
Angel-street, pleaded guilty to the same offence, and was
fined £2O and £2 costs; and a second summons was granted
against a man named Barnett, of No. 1, Pudding-lane, who
did not appear to his summons.