The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-26 00:00:00

THE BETTING-HOUSE PROSECUTION.

DOW-STREET POLICE COURT.—Tuts DAY.
To-day William Wright, of Brydge's-street,
Covent-garden, Alfred Arnold, John Barton, John
Scheller, Alfred Dufferin, George Taylor, James
Wakeling, Jonas Correy, John Tooley, George
Donaldson, William Ulp, Francis Bernan, Thomas
Graham, George West, William Nicholson, and
Samuel Lockwood appeared on remand before Sir
Thomas Henry, charged under the 3dsection with
keeping a betting-house, contrary to the Act of
Parliament, bat the defendants were not placed in
the dock.
Mr. Poland appeared on the part of the Treasury
to prosecute, and Mr. Sergeant Sleigh defended
Mr. Wright.
It will be recollected that the police made a
seizure on Wright's premises last Saturday, and
took possession of various papers and books found
therein, and that the proceedings were adjourned,
in order to enable an examination of the documents
to be made, and also for the purpose of considering
what course should be adopted with respect to
those defendants who acted, merely as clerks to
Mr. Wright.
Mr. Poland said that since last Saturday it had
been ascertained that all the defendants, except
Wright, were messengers and clerks, and as they
had received no profits he did not propose to offer
any evidence against them.
Sir T. Henry thought that was the proper course,
and therefore he ordered all, except Wright, to be
discharged.
Mr Poland said the charge against Wright was
laid under the 3d section of the Act 16 and 18 Vic.,
chap. 119, which was as follows :
" Any person who, being the owner and occupier
of any house, office, or place, or person using the
same, shall open, keep, and use the same for pur-
poses herein mentioned, or either of them and any
person who, being the owner or occupier of any
house, shall knowingly and -wilfully permit the
same to be opened, kept, or used by any other per-
son for the purposes aforesaid, and any person
having assisted in conducting the business of any
such house, shall be liable to a penalty of £lOO,
and in default committed to gaol for six mouths."
The learned counsel then stated the proceedings
against Wright. The police officer had sent to
Mr. Wright to back Cock of the Walk for the
Royal Hunt Cup, and that amongst the
books seized was a book containing the
actual acknowledgment of the receipt of
the money from the public, which book contained
no less than 56,000 vouchers, from which not less
than 32,980 had been taken, and in a space of not
less than three months. The money, it appears,
was sent in a letter in sums of not less than 103.,
and then a voucher was sent to the person trans •
mitting the money, stating the amount of the odds
laid. The learned counsel having also read
the advertisement inserted in the newspapers,
the defendant stating that bets were laid by him
as commissioner, and that all persons representing
him other than at his office in York-street, were
welchers and swindlers, said he was quite sure that
he should make out a:case against Mr. Wright, and
that, amongst other things, although he (Wright)
appeared as a member of Tattersall's, it appeared
that there could be no doubt, when he was asked
to make a particular bet, he got a horse that he
thought would not win, that he took the bet him-
self, and put the money into his own pocket.
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh objected to such reflections.
All the defendant proposed to do was to obtain as
a commission agent bets for certain persons on races
that might be named.
Sir Thomas Henry —Thoso are not the wordi
either in the Act or the summons.
Mr. Poland said he would not make any further
observations, but call evidence to show the property
taken possession of by the police.
Sergeant W. Palmer, of the detective department,
then read a list of numerous sporting books, amongst
which was one containing the bet of the inspector of
police, and the voucher of its repayment.
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh said he would not trouble
his learned friend to go into details, as he thought
it would be useless to consume valuable time. Al-
though he felt there was no case against the de-
fendant, yet he felt that, as other proceedings must
be taken, it would be futile to occupy the time of
the Court.
Sir I'. Henry remarked that there was a power,
under the 22d and 23d of Victoria, to the defen-
dant to claim a special case in the event of a sum-

wary conviction.
Mr. S.3rgt. Sleigh said that on the part of the de-
fendant he had to say that it never was his inten-
tion to contravene the law. Ile had carried on his
business within the four corners of the law, and if
he bad fallen into an error he was ready to bow to
the decision of the Court. Ile could not help say-
ing that the raid which had been made upon per-
sons of the position of Mr. Wright for betting was
most unjust, considering that about half
of the House of Lords and two-thirds
of the House of Commons took part in it. The
learned sergeant was about to quote the opinions
of the law officer of the Crown on introducing the
Act, which he contended was to meet the case
where betting was carried on by boys and servants
for small sums in shops open for that purpose.
Sir T. Henry told the learned Sergeant he could
not hear quotations from the speeches of members
of Parliament.

Mr. Sergeant Sleigh said he was merely quoting
from " Hansard," and he did not know that he was
wrong in doing so ; however, he would desist ; and
he could only say he believed that Mr. Wright was
a most respectable person, and that he had con-
ducted his business quite as correctly as any mem-
ber of the Stock Exchange. If therefore he had
been acting wrongly, he was prepared to bow to the
decision of the court.
Sir T. Henry—l am very anxious to know what
is the exact point of law you desire that I should
state for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench?
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—That this is not a betting-
house within the Act of Parliament.
Sir T. Henry—But I must state that he did
receive £1 from the officer, Lansdown, as and for a
consideration for an assurance to pay a given sum
of money thereafter on the contingency of a horse
race.

Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—Yes, and also that when
the money was forwarded a voucher was sent.
Sir T. Henry—Yes, and the money was paid.
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—Yes, just as the member
of the Stock Exchange gives a contract note.
Sir T. Henry--But then you don't give the name
of a third party. Lansdown sends the money, and
Wright forwards the amount of the bet if the horse
backed wins. You make mention of the name of
no third party.
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—The whole world is the
third party.
Sir T. Henry—My difficulty is what I am to ask
the Court of Queen's Bench to decide.
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—To ask, on the facts stated
before you, Sir Thomas, that this is not a betting-
house under the Act.
Sir T. Henry—But the Court would be certain
to send the case back, without it contained facts.
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—You can, Sir Thomas,
frame the case on the facts stated before you.
Sir T. Henry—l must draw the information and
state the bet of Lansdown.
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—But it has not been proved
that Wright received the money for himself, but
that it was for investment.
Sir T. Henry—There is nothing to show that ;
the voucher states that the -money will be sent if
won. The voucher is an undertaking to pay.
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—l don't think, with the
greatest respect, that it can be so considered.
Sir T. henry—You don't, on the part of Mr.
Wright, say the vouchers is not a promise to pay?
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh--I cannot think that the
voucher can be so regarded.
Sir T. Henry—l think it is a promise. I shall
have to state it found as a promise. I want to know
point of law I can state to which the Court of
Queen's Bench is to be called upon to give itf con-
sideration?
Mr. Sergeant Sleigh—You can state that it was
contended before your sir, that the defendant's was
not a betting-house.