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 wero
brought under his notice on Friday last, relative to the prac-
tice of betting in public houses.
Huddlestone (with Mr. Hoblor) 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 bo used for betting purposes by persons re-
sorting thereto ; but in the case of Mr. Smith it did not ap-
pear that he had tali en 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 statemenit of the police-officer that ho 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.
Ho admitted that he had great doubts as to the meaning of
this new act of Parliament for the suppression of betting-
houses, and ho 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 ho
believed that the fact of a landlord's betting with a customer
was contemplated by the framers- of the aot and the Legisla-
ture.; and although a great deal might be said on both sides
of the question, ho should not hesitate to act upon his own
impression. He 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 Queen's
ißtewantmTpohretawnotrdtihaugt nooiftstthfhpoeirrfrotepeihtserwasintbeyrpre tatror
schltrd, siabt:
settled definitively. He believed he should serve the public
not the cofa
best by enabling the parties to coursetakpeutrphiossebetting."
r getetai tuspego.n:ciefi,edaninct
therefore lie should convict the defendant " as the owner of
e
tthheemhsru.omusme,onussi.ng
Huddlestone—Butth

Mr. Jardine - No matter ; the fact came out in evidence.
sual
the notice
parties o f appeal was and that enabled me to deal with it. In the other moo, against
Mr. Smith, the summons is dismissed.
The
rweasturnthed to the court,
then given
; but shortly
Mr. Huddlestone stated that he had reconsidered the qui-
tiou of appeal, for he felt himself placed, in a dilemma.
he
AU
the parties were most anxious to take the opinionbut of •
judgesun:
afterwards,
upon the question raised by the present summons
Proper to deal with an
offence of a total] different c
fortunately his worship had thought Prop
hameter. Mr. Morbey was
called upon to answy
er the charge
of having wilfully permitted
oath other in his house ; he had met
persons to bet with
rtinz his beief that it was not an offence
this charge by asserting his
and upon that point' e was anxious
contemplated by the sot,
ad,antagg, was taken of his having
for a decision ;but '
the odds upon a race while conversing
accepted tomcrs, to convict him of what really was
..ciisc,cBusowhich it would be useless to combat,
an nireace' - -circumstances, he (Mr. lluddlcstone) felt it would
cvbairtehl es
onesly
of
his
Under these ie•• st his worship's decision, unless it was
in
Mowed to stand as a conviction upon the original summons,
ali- nut upon a fresh complaint.
and - Jardine,after some discussion upon the suggestion 40.
Mr.
learned counsel, said the conviction must be made out in
the .
be folly to appeal against
the usual way. If any other complaints were brought before
him, involving only the question of permitting betting by
others, lie should deal with it according to his judgment of
the fact, and then an appeal could follow, if desired.
Mr. Duncan thought that this question hail arisen in his
"case as against Mr. Smith ; and his conviction almost, in
order that the matter might be finally disposed of.
Mr. Iluddlestonc inquired if some arrangement could not
be made, by means of which au 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 the new act ?" If this could
ba done, lie would admit the facts of the case—that persona
were assembled, with his client's knowledge, for the purpose
of betting with each other.

This proposition havtlig been declined,
The learned counsel requested a further mitigation of the
penalty to 51., 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 proceeding*
theu terminated by the withdrawal of the notice of appeal.