The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-24 00:00:00

BETTING IN PUBLIC HOUSES.

At Bow-street Police-court, yesterday, Mr. Jardine gave
his decision upon the two police complaints which were
brought under his notice on Friday last, relative to the prac-
tice of betting in public houses.
Mr. Huddlestone (with Mr. Hobler) and Mr. Duncan, who
represented the defendants, were again in attendance.
Mr. Jardine said these were very important cases, no doubt,
although in his mind, there was a great distinction between
them. Both the defendants were summoned for allowing
their houses to be used for betting purposes by persons re-
sorting thereto ; but in the case of Mr. Smith it did not ap-
pear that he bad taken any part in the betting; and the fact •
of there being a notice paper relative to the settlement of bet-
ting transactions on a given day, however entitled to conside-
ration in another way, did not bring him within the, meaning
of the act. With respect to the case of Mr. Morbey, there
was the statement of the police-officer that he saw the land-
lord betting with his customers upon certain race-horses ;
and the question was, whether this was not an act which
made him liable to the penalties imposed by the new law.
He admitted that he had great doubts as to the meaning of
this new act of Parliament for the suppression of betting-
houses, and he had been forcibly struck with the argument of
Mr. Huddlestone respecting the non-application of that mea-
sure to summonses like the present ; but at the same time he
believed that the fact of a landlord's betting with a customer
was contemplated by the framers of the act and the Legisla-
ture ; and although a great deal might be said on both sides
of the question, he should not hesitate to act upon his own
impression. Hei should therefore convict the defendant, Mr.
Morbey, and order him to pay a penalty of 101., or be com-
mitted for two months. In doing this he presumed that he
should be only putting the matter in a position for further
inquiry—to be argued, if necessary, in the Court of Quenes
I Bench. The wording of the act was by no means clear, and
it was important that its 'proper interpretation should be
settled definitively. lie believed he should serve the publics
best by enabling the parties to take this course at once and
therefore he should convict the defendant as the owner of
the house, using the same for the purpose of betting."
Mr. Huddlestone--But this is not the charge specified
in
the summons. _

.--
Mr. Jardine - No matter ; the fact came out in evidence,
and that enabled me to deal with it. In the other case, against
Mr. Smith, the summons is dismissed.
The usual notice of appeal was then given ; but shortly
afterwards, the parties having returned to the court, „./'
Mr. Huddlestone stated that he had reconsidered the q'Tli
the parties were most anxious to take
tion of appeal, for he felt himself placed in a diirtthinaiudgen
the o .
upon the question raised by the present aumLn- eeaf with an fortunately his worship had thought proper t 0 deaf
ar 14orbey was
offence of a totally different character. "7 • permitted
called upon to answer the charge of havinghouse ; he' had met
persons to bet with each other in his not an offence
this charge by asserting his belief
neon that point he was anxious
contemplated by the act, and w.,
taken of his having
anion
—eb-nt
as
for a decision ; but now adv Flt a race while conversing
carelessly accepted the .odds upon
convict him of what really was
with one of his customeng,.
he (Mr. Huddlestone) felt it would,
an offence, and o
Under these circumstan? !
i this worship's decision, unless it was
h :would be useless to combat.;
be folly appeal
allowed to stand as_
l'aegawhaniccsonviction upon the original summons.
some discussion upon the suggestion of
Mr. Jardine after
' said the conviction must be made out in
the learned counsel,
other complaints were brought before
us' way. If any . .
the us . betting
only the question of permitting by
him, involving fresh complaint.
and not noon a
others, should
he deal with it according to his judgment of
t fact, and then an appeal could follow, if desired.
e
hn_ Duncan thought that this question had arisen in his
case as against Mr. Smith ; and his conviction almost, in.
_ ..
order that the matter might be finally disposed of.

Mr. Huddlestone inquired if some arrangement could Dot
be made, by means of which an opinion could be taken upon
the following question :--" Whether the owner of a house,
permitting people to frequent the same for the purpose of
betting, would be liable under tho new act 1" If this could
bi done, ho would admit the facts of the case—that persons
were assembled, with his client's knowledge, for the rid".
of betting with each other.

This proposition having been declined,
The learned counsel requested a further mitigation of thi
penalty to 5/., the fact really being that his client did not
use his house for any purpose of the kind.
This application was also unsuccessful, and the proceedingo
then teinnn4o4 thQ iiithclawal of ttlo u9tico 'Weak