The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-17 00:00:00

BETTING ON HORSE-RACING IN

PUBLIC-ROUSES.

Charles Morbey, the landlord of the Sun public-house, in
Long-acre, was summoned before Mr. Jardine, at Bow-street,
yesterday, to answer the charge of unlawfully and knowingly
permitting his house to be used by divers other persons for
the purpose of betting on horse-racing with persons resorting
thereto.
Mr. Huddleston appeared for the defendant.
As this and the succeeding are the first complaints made
under the Act 16th and 17th Viet., c. 119, for the suppression
of betting-houses, a considerable crowd of persons interested
in the subject attended the hearing.
John Stannard, police-constable F 145, stated that he
visited defendant's house on the 30th of May last, at about
half-past 8, and remained there till 11 o'clock in the evening.
There were from 40 to 50 persons in the front room on the
first floor, and during the time he was present they were en-
gaged in betting with one another upon different horses.
They had betting-books in their hands. The landlord was
present also with a book, and he betted with the others.
Mr. Jardine—What kind of language was used ?
Witness—They said to ono another, " I will bet 24 to 2"
on such and such a horse ; " I will back" so and so ; and
then the bets were entered in their books. Witness was
about to refer to a private memorandum which he stated ho
wrote the same evening, having copied it from his pocket-

book, when
Mr. Huddlestou insisted on looking both at the memoran
durn and the pocket-book, and cross-examined the witness
with some warmth as to his mode of preparing it. He elicited
from the constable that some writing on the back of the docu-
ment was written by his superior officer, who instructed him
how to act.
By Mr. Jardine —The whole of the memorandum is not
copied from my pocket-book, as some of it was put down
from memory. I had directions, after visiting the house, to
make a report to the inspector as to what was going on. I
was asked if the landlord was present and joined in the betting,
and having replied that he was, the inspector wrote a memo-
randum on the back of my report, telling me to state that fact
iu evidence.
Mr. Huddleston then replied for the defendant, stating that
he could not place implicit reliance upon the avowal of the
witness that the landlord was himself present and taking part
in the betting, because, in his original report to the inspector,
he had omitted to say anything about it. That a number of
persons had assembled in the defendant's room, and were
betting with each other, he did not mean to dispute ; but
that his client " kept" the house for the purpose of betting
with persons who resorted thereto, he begged on his behalf
most emphatically to deny. He could not help looking with
suspicion upon the manner in which the officer had revised his
report, after the interview with his superior officer. But even
the fact of the landlord being present, and making a casual
bet with one of his customers, would not, he contended,
render him liable to the penalties imposed by the now act,
which contemplated a very different kind of offence. For
the purpose of his argument, he would suppose Mr. Morbey
to be present in the room and hearing the betting going on
—that is, the taking or giving the odds of the day, by per-
sons resorting to his house and what did it amount to ?
It was precisely similar to what occural every day in the
week, except Sunday, he believed, at Tattersall's, and at half
the clubs in London. The third section of the act makes
it an offence for the owner or occupier of any house, place,
or office, knowingly, and wilfully permitting the same
to be opened, kept, or used for certain purposes which are
defined in the first section, which enacts that " no house,
office, room, or other place shall be opened, kept, or used by
any person, ac., for the purpose of betting with persons re-
sorting thereto, or receiving money, security, or otherwise,
upon any event or contingency in relation to horse-racing,
&c." The word " using" could not be construed to apply to
any person simply frequenting the room, but it referred to
any owner, occupier, or manager, who kept a purse there,
and said " I am ready to take or give the odds of the clay."
Au act of Parliament must be tested by the intentions of the
framers, and the nature of the evil which it proposed to re-
medy. Now, what was this evil ? A nuisance of an abomin-
able character had sprung up in the metropolis, where bet-
ting-shops were opened iu all parts, and persons were asked
to bet with the person who kept them, upon the mere faith
of his assurance. This was the kind of betting sought to
be suppressed by the Legislature ; not betting as it existed
before, and exists still in higher circles. The present Attor-
ney-General, when introducing the measure, clearly pointed
out this distinction. He said (the learned counsel here read
from the Racing Times)—" Thp course now is for the bet-
ting-office keeper to hold. himself forth to bet with all
corners, contrary to the usage of Tattersall's, whore persons
bet with each other, and where no one keeps a table, or holds
a bag against all comers." The intention of the act is here
clearly defined. If any other construction is put upon it,
the late Prime Minister, the Earl of Derby, would be liable,
any day, as a frequenter of Tattersall's, to be proceeded
against as an offender against the law of the land. In the
preamble of the act the word " using" was not inserted,
but the employment of that word subsequently, in con-
junction with "frequenting or resorting," showed that it had
a distinct meaning, which, be submitted, must be interpreted
by reference to the practice of common betting-offices as it
existed before the passing of the bill in question.
Mr. Jardine—No doubt the chief difficulty turns upon the
three or four words " or any person using the same ?" and it
is also reasonable enough that the intention of the act should
be considered; but I shall reserve my judgment upon the
point for more careful consideration.
The second ewe, against John Smith, the landlord of the
Duke's Head, Mercer-street, Long-acre, was then proceeded
with.
Similar evidence having been given by the police,
Inspector Dodd produced a written announeement which
he founded posted on defendant's mantel-piece on Sunday
morning, the 4th inst., to the effect that " All bets on the
Derby and Oaks will bo paid on Monday next." Witness
said. to the landlord, "Do you know what that is He re-

plied, " Oh, yes. I did not know that there was any harm
in betting, if there was no money deposited." Witness said,
" Have you not read the act of Parliament ?" He replied,
" Yes ; I have got it in the house." Witness added, " You
I will see, then, that you are liable to severe penalties. I
shall take this to show the magistrate ;" upon which he tore
down the notice and brought it away.
Mr. Duncan, who attended for Smith, having addressed
the bench in reply,
Mr. Jardine said, there was some difference in the two
cases, but he should defer his decision iu both for a week. He
believed that in clubs there were some regulations defining the
extent of it ; but still the practice was somewhat similar.
Mr. Huddleston, who was a member of three clubs, could
state that a regular sweepstakes was posted up in each of
them.