The Sun.
London, England, 1854-09-02 00:00:00

BETTING OFFICES.

At the Southwark police-court yesterday, ..Tohn Robins,
the owner of a coffee-house, situated at 204, Blackfriars-
road, was summoned by the police authorities for an
offence against the new statute for the suppression of
betting houses.
Superintendent Horne. prosecuted, by order of the
superior police authorities.
Henry Richards. a shoemaker, said he knew Robin's
coffee-house, and bad seen placards in the windows
announcing a drawing for horse racing, On the 29th
of July he entered the house and saw Robins, who told
him that the drawing for the Brighton Stakes would
take place on the following day. Witness went there,
when Rubins said the draw could not take place as he
had not sold enough, but he gave him a ticket for the
Ebor Handicap, to be drawn on the 231 ,of August.
The ticket last named was numbered 582, and he
paid Robins a shilling for it. Witness went to the
coffee-house and saw Robins put a thousand tickets
into a box, and his assistant, named Palmer, who
was there, also put the names of the horses into
another box. Robins drew the numbers, and Palmer
the names of the horses. When the latter were drawn
the remainder were all blanks and left in the box. Wit-
ness did not hear that any one drew a winning horse.
Mr. Mitchell was present, and he had two tickets, but
neither of his were prizes. The latter person went up
to Palmer, who laid Mitchell 15 to 1 against Hermit,
and 6 to 1 against Dr. O'Toole, and witness saw him
pay Palmer a sovereign on account of the two bets.
Robins was present at the time, but he took no part in
the betting. _ _

Mr. Coi7nbe ;said he was of opinion that there was no
case against Robins. Suppose two parties went into a
public-house, say the London Tavern, or any other place
of notoriety, and were served with refreshments—they
bet together without the cognisance of the landlord;
how can that party be responsible ? There was no proof
at present that the defendant knew anything of the bet-
ting. A man keeping such a house would never be, safe
if it was otherwise.

Mr. Haynes—But there were printed tickets sold by
Robins for a consideration on a horse race.

Mr. Combe--That's another case requiring explana-
tion. All the tickets say, "Surrey Race Club. One
shilling for the purchase of the British race horse." I
can't see anything in that to reach Robins under the act
of Parliament. . .

Mr. Haynes—The first section of the act applies to it.
The object was to prevent any person betting in a house
kept for that purpose, and made the occupier liable, as
well as any one connected with him.
Mr. Combe—But there's no proof that Robins re-
ceived money in the way of betting. This ticket only
alludes to an admission to a drawing for the portrait of
a horse. _ _

Mr. Solomon (for defendant)—l object to Mr. Hayne's
statement, and interference in the case. Let the case
stand on the evidence, and I beg to submit that there is
none, and the summons must be dismissed.
Mr. Combo said it was the first case that had come
before him under the New Betting Act, and he should
like to look well at. it before he gave his decision.
Mr. Haynes said it had been decided at Bow-street,
and he had another witness to call.

John Mitchell, a baker, in Union-street, said he went
into Robin's shop and purchased two tickets of him for
the Brighton Stakes, which was to have come off on the
29th of July. The draw did not come off on that day,
and Robins gave him two tickets for the Ebor Handicap
instead. Witness attended at the coffee-house, and saw
Robins draw the numbers and Palmer the horses.
Mr. Combe—You did not get a winning horse, did
you ?
Witness—No, I did not.
Mr. Cornbe—Well, who does get them ? That's a
poser. (Laughter.)
Witness—The draw was in this manner-201. for the
first horse, 101. for the second, 71. 103. for the third, and
71. to be divided. I heard the defendant say that was
the agreement. It was, however, only to be half the
amount, as the sweep was not full.
Mr. Haynes—Are you aware what advantage Robins
was to have from the draw ?

Witness—No, lam not. I never heard that any one
did win.

Mr. Combe—l can pretty clearly see through the
trick. They draw the night before the race, when they
pretty well know the five or six horses likely to win the
race. They take good care never to put any of them in
the box, but if an outsider happens to come in off they
bolt. (Laughter.) You appear to be one of the
pigeons. Did you make a bet with Robins ?
Witness—No, I did not ; but I made two bets with
Palmer, 15 to 1 on Hermit, and 5 to 1 on Dr. O'Toole.
When I banded him a sovereign Robins was there, but
he did not see the bet, and I don't think he got any
benefit from it.
Mr. Combe—This man corroborates the other wit-

ness's testimony, and proves that Robins took the
shillings and gave tickets for a drawing for a race. It
is a very intricate case, as Robins was proved to super-
intend the drawing ; therefore I must carefully look at
the Act of Parliament. Robins acted as the stakeholder,
and they generally keep the lion's share. Is this an
open coffee-house ?

Mr. Solomon—Yes, it is, and has been conducted re-
spectably by Robins for years.
Mr. Haynes—lt has been a betting-house a long time.
Mr. Combe said he should adjourn tit° decision for a
few days, and in the mean time he should carefully look
into the Act of Parliament and the evidence adduced.

As the witness Richards was quitting the court he
was surrounded by a number of the defendant's friends,
who pushed him about and ill-used him. Two of the
ringleaders were however secured, and charged before
the magistrate for assaulting Richards. They stated
their names to be Mark Barwick, horsebreaker, East-
street, Walworth, and Samuel Den, builder, Walworth.
The charge was proved against them by Inspector
Timewell and Sergeant Hart, 456 A, who heard also
Barwick say he would not mind paying 51. to give
Richards a good knock on the head.
Mr. Combe said that witnesses must be protected from
the violence of parties in a court of justice, and he should
order each of the defendants to find good and substantial
bail for their future good conduct for three months.

POCKET-PICKING AT LONDON-BRIDGE

James Murat, a well-dressed young man, who de-
scribed himself as a hearth-rug weaver, of Stratford,
Essex, and Robert Ewer, a man dressed in a Guernsey
frock, and who stated himself to be a lighterman out of
work, were brought before Mr. Combe, charged with
picking the pockets of several persons unknown, near
the railway terminus, London-bridge.
Sergeant Richards, 10 M, said he was on duty in pri-
vate clothes the previous evening about nine o'clock,
when he saw the prisoners together near the railway
terminus. They followed gentlemen with ladies, and
he distinctly saw Murch attempt several gentlemen's
pockets. When near the Town Hall he saw Murch
take a handkerchief from a pocket and pass it to the
other, who stuffed it under his Guernsey frock. Witness
immediately seized hold of the latter and handed Murch
to another constable, when they took them to the
station-house. On searching Ewer he found four silk
handkerchiefs, which had evidently been stolen
recently.
Mr. Combe asked whether he knew them

_ .....,—. ..- ---- -- •
Richards replied in the negative. - But he had no
doubt from their actions they were old thieves. The
handkerchiefs were marked, and if notice was taken of
the case in the papers, he had no doubt the owners
could be found.
The prisoners made a rambling statement, and
Mr. Combe remanded them for a week.