The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-20 00:00:00

CAUTION TO BETTING-OFFICE

KEEPERS.

At the Marlborough-street Police Court, Frederick
Harding, the alleged keeper of a betting-office and
coffee-shop, 22, Panton-street, Haymarket, was sum-
moned by the police, under the new Betting Act, for that
he, being the occupier of a room, No. 22, Panton-street,
kept and used for the purpose of betting with persons,
did receive half-a•sovereign from Lionel Rayner, in con-
sideration of paying the sum of 31. on an event relating
to a horse race.

Mr. Preston attended for the defence.
Mr. Rayner said he lived in Compton-street. He went
to the defendant's betting-office in Panton-street, and
tendered half-a-sovereign as a bet upon a horse called
the Knight of St. George, to run at the Worcestershire
Races. The defendant took. the money and told him if
his horse won that the next day he would be paid 3/.
The horse did win : he went for his money, and was met
with the very old dodge, " that another man had claimed
the money and had received it." He offered to forego
his money if the defendant would produce the receipt of
the person to whom he alleged he had paid it. He was
told to call the following Monday, and then he should
have his money. He did call, and saw the defendant's
brother, who asserted that the money had been paid to
another person, and who refused to pay his claim.
Mr. Preston asked the witness what he was ?
Witness—A comedian.
Mr. Preston—Are you not in the habit of writing for
a newspaper ?

Witness—l have written something.
Mr. Preston—Under what name I
Mr. Hardwick did not think the solicitor had a right
to put that question. He might as well ask a man if he
had had the small-pox ?
Witness was willing to state his literary name. It
was "Joe Muggins's Dog." (Laughter.)
The defendant asserted that the witness was mistaken
with respect to the person to whom he paid his money.
The person to whom the defendant paid the half-
sovereign was his brother.

Rayner—Don't talk nonsense. I've known you at
least ten years.
Defendant—My brother is often taken for me. We
are as like as two peas.
Rayner—l knew you when you kept a house in
Oxenden-street.

Defendant—Bet you 20 to lof that. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. Preston having cross-examined the witness, in
order to shake his testimony as far as the identity of the
defendant was concerned, and having failed to do so,
appealed to the court for an adjournment, in order to
procure the attendance of the defendant's brother.

Mr. Hardwick pointed out the positive declaration
of the witness as to the defendant's identity, and the
corroborative evidence of the constable who was called
in by the witness to take the defendant into custody for
obtaining money by false pretences.

The solicitor win:fitted that Ise could not struggle suc
cessfully against that part of the evidence.

Mr. Rayner said his motive for coming forward was
that he felt he had been swindled, and he wished to pro-
tect others against being served in the same way.
Inspector Parke said the new act had been of use at
first in suppressing betting-offices, but recently these
offices had made their appearance in great force, and
were so artfully conducted as to baffle detection.
Mr. Hardwick was satisfied with the evidence of in-
dentity. If the statement were true that the bet had
been paid to another person, that would be no mitiga-
tion of the offence, it was rather an aggravation of the
circumstance to put forward the pretence of having paid
the money to another in order to defraud the rightful
party of his due. This, however; was a case, and the
first of its kind under the new Betting Act, a most
useful and salutary act passed for the repression of
gambling. It was notorious that betting offices were
the means of leading persons into gambling who could
ill afford to lose anything, and who, if they did lose,
seldom failed to plunge their families into ruin. It was
the purpose of the legislature to remedy this mischief,
and the present salutary act was passed in the expecta-
tion that it would accomplish that desirable object. The
penalty imposed by the act was 1001., or gix months'
bard labour, or six months' hard labour without a
penalty. The present case being proved, he should in-
flict a fine of 501. or three months' hard labour. The
full penalty would always be inflicted on a recurrence of
the offence.
The defendant gave notice of appeal.

THE COMMISSION OF LUNACY ON