The Sun.
London, England, 1869-08-02 00:00:00

THE BETTING-HOUSE PROSECU7ION.

BOW-STREET-THIS DAY.

To-day Mr. W. Wright attended with his legal
advisers to meet the charge of having kept a bet-
ting-house at No. 16, York-street, Covent-garden,
contrary to the statute.
On the last occasion it will be recollected the other
defendants, Messrs. Morris and Smith submitted to a
conviction, when it was determined to take the
contention raised on the part of Mr. Wright to the
superior Courts at Westminster for argument, the
magistrate, Sir Thomas Henry, having consented to
sign a c:s3 for that purpose, the counsel on both
undertaking to have the terms settled by
to-day, awl ready for the signature of the chief
magistrate.

Mr. Sleigh, for Mr. Wright, informed the magis-
trate that Mr. Polan i, for the prosecution, and him-
self, had nearly settled all the points requisite, but
they could not quite agree upon the laAt paragrao,
that setting forth the finding of the magistrate.
They were agreed as to the terms that would raise
the matter on the correctness of the magisterial
conviction, and the case world set out that it was
contend,:d that the de fen lint d d a )t keep a betting
house walling the meaning of th 3 act, that the
documents (letters and r:.ceipt) with respct to
the bets receive 1 by Wright from Inspector
Clarke backing See Saw for £1) were not promises
to pay, but merely vouchers for certain transactions
from which the defendant deducted cmunissim for
services rendered. His learned friend, Mr. Poland,
could not quite agree to the case as he Mr. Sleigh
had put it, but he did not think there would be any
difficulty in agreeing, so that the case might be
taken at once, and placed for trial in the Court of
Exchequer.
Sir T. Henry—Why not the Court of Queen's
Bench ? •

Mr. Sleigh—We shall got the matter settled
quicker in the Exchequer, and we have the right
to select either of the two Courts.

Sir I'. Henry—Oh yes, you have that right.
Mr. Sleigh—We want to have the whole of the
documents produced embodied in the case.
Sir T. Henry—Quite so, the evidence and docu-
ments can be put in, and then it will be for the
court to say whether my con% iction is correct in
law.

Mr. Sleigh thought that it ought to be stated
that Wright received the money as an agreement.
His advertisement differed materially from those of
the other defendants.

Mr. Poland said Wright's advertisements guaran-
teed the market odds.

Sir T. henry—l shall use the very words of the
act of Parliament in . stating the case—viz., that
the defendant did receive money, did make bets,
and did undertake to pay. When the court had
read the letter received by Clarke, acknowledging
the receipt of the money backing See Saw, it could
at once say whether it was an undertaking to pay
or not—that was, in fact, the whole case.
Mr. Poland—l shall onteud that Wright did
keep an office, did receive money, did give assur-
ances to pay after deducting his commission, and
also that the receipt of Post-office orders was a re-
ceipt of money within the term of the Act of Par-
liament.

Mr. Sleigh—Yes, I ad►nit that ; but it wag for
other persons. _ _ .

Sir T. Henry—Bat yon dii not on the former
occasion produce those " other persons" although
challenged. You did not show that the bets had
even been transferred.

Mr. Sleigh—Mr. Wright is a person who takes
commission for small sums, and then bets £l,OOO to
£lOO in one sum with other persons.

Sir I'. Henry—You want to make out that
Wright is not a principal.
Mr. Sleigh—Quite so.

Sir T. Ifenry—Then, whois the principal—that's
the iuforma:ion that's wanted. In mercantile
transactions where a person sets himself out as an
agent in any legal transaction he invariably gives
the name of the principal.
Mr. Poland—l have but one desire—that is, that
the case should be fairly put.
The terms of the case, after some further altera-
tions, were then finally agreed 0..1, and Sir T. Henry
said, when a fair copy was made, he would sign
the document. There must be a conviction, of
course, and the fli.e must be the same as iu the
other cases.

Air. Sleigh—Well, perhaps the fine in the pre-
sent instance would be sA down at a trifling suin.
Sir T. IL:nry co•.ilLl not consent to such a thing,
as it wo ild give rather a trivial look to.the presJuL
matter, which was not desirable.

An application was then made on the part of Mr.
Wright for the retlrn of s?me of his books, as he
was experiencing great difficulty by not having ac-
cess to them.

.Sir T. Henry said he could not order that, but
every facility should be giveu to defendant fur re-
ference to thew.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—nis Day.

WESTMINSTER.

IMPUDENT ROBBERY.—Oaroline Holmes, Catherine
Street, and Thomas Bracker were charged with stealing
five large pictures, a looking-glass, and other articles.
James Panton, of 21, Gloucester-grove, Bro:npton, sail
he bad occupied the house, 17, Keppell-street, Chelsea,
and Holmes was a lodger there. He was removing on
Friday, and on going to the house found that the drawers
in the parlour had been ransacked. He then removed the
pictures and glass, the subject of the prosecution, into the
room. Shortly afterwards they were taken.
Detective W. Watts proved being directed to investi-
gate the matter. Holmes when spoken to denied all know-
ledge of the things. Street, who goes by the name of
"Set Joy," was met by the officer, and asked what she had
dono with the pictures, when she said they had been given
to her by Holmes, and she had sold them to Bracker, who
knew where they came from. They were found at
Bracker's house. When all three prisoners were captured
and put in the dock at the station they had a squabble
amongst themselves as to what the property fetched mud
what had been accounted for.

Evidence was given showing Street had sold a stolen
mattress.

Holmes admitted taking the pictures. Street said she
thought Holmes had a right to sail the things, and Bracker
said he bought them under that belief.
Holmes and Street wore committed for one month each.
Bracker discharged.