The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-21 00:00:00

BETTING-HO US$ IN THE CITY.

At the Guildhall police court yesterday Russell Green
appeared to answer an information charging him with
unlawfully using a certain room in a house situate 45,
Fleet-'ane, Farriugdon-street, for the purposes of betting
upon certain events and, contingencies relating to hor.e.
racing whereby he incarred a penalty of not exceeding
1001. or six months' imprisonment, with or without hard
labour, in the discretion of the magistrate.
Sir R. W. Carden presided.
Mr. Charles Pearson, the City solicitor, attended to
conduct the prosecution on the part of the Corporation
of London, and said these proceedings were taken under
the' 16th and 17th of Viet., cap. 119, sec. 3, and the
offence in the present instance was that of using the
room f)r betting purposes. He therefore proposed 'call-
ing. the evidence to prove that fact, which he believed
would be so clearly established that a conviction must
necessarily follow.

Edward Briscoll, police-constable 168, said, on the 3d
of June last, he went to No. 45, Fleet-lane, where, in a
room on the ground floor, he saw the defendant. The
room in question was a front shop, and was fitted up
with a counter, upon which were strewn a number of
cards hearing the names of horses upon them, and the
races they were to st,rt for. There was a small desk,
at which the defendant was sitting, behind the counter,
and he was apparently concluctino. the business of the
establishment. Witness made a bet with the defendant
on that day, for 10s. against Gailico for the Beverley
Cup, the odds being 3 to 1, which the defendant entered
in a book, but gave him no card. He saw no other par-
ticolar act of the defendant's. Witness went there pre-
vi usly on the 26th of May last, and saw the defendant
sitting behind the counter, and the same description of
cards were lying about as on the latter occasion. There
were also a number of persons present, and the conver-
sation was about hose-racing ; but no betting took
place. He called a,ain on the 2d of June, and upon
subsequent days, and each time saw the defendant with
all the appurtenances already described around him ;
but he never witnessed any other business transacted
there.

Crsss•eaamined,—He saw some cards in a book ; I ut
there were others also on the counter.
Re-examined,-13e observed several bets made by
other persons there ; but as he did not hear the name of
the horse, or the race it was backed for, he had not men-
tioned it in his first evidence. He also saw money paid
on account of bets, and noticed that entries were made-
in a book at the same time ; but he did not see the
entries. The shop windows were darkened with paint,
so that it was impossible to see through them.
The defendant admitted that he had used the room
for the purposes alleged against him, and urged in miti-
gation of penalty, that he was a scale-maker by trade,
and carried on that business during the winter, but in
summer he attended horse-races, which led to his acting
as he had done. He was not aware he was acting im-
properly in this matter, and as soon as he was cognisant
of the fact, and that nroce.dings were being taken against
others, he shut up his office, and discontinued teat busi-
ness, and two days afterwards be received the present
summons,

Sir W. Carlon said as the defendant bad given uo the
practice complained of it was something in his favour,
and he wou'd, therefore, take it into consideration in
fixing the penalty ; but if ever he were convicted again,
the penalty of 1001. would be inflicted, as the magistrates
were determined to enforce the act of Parliament to its
fullest extent, with a view to suppress such iniquitous
places as betting-houses.
The defendant was then fined 101. and costs, which
were immediately paid.
John Palmer as summoned for using a room in the
Whits Swan public-house, in Farringdon•street, for bet-
ting purposes, against the statute, &c.
The City Solicitor prosecuted in this case also ; Mr.
Huddleston appeared for the defendant.
Mr. Charles Pearson said this was a case similar to
the last although the circumstances were soutawhat dif
ferent. The proceedings were taken under the same
section of the 16th and 17th of Vic., cap. 119, but he was
not prepared to yield to the objections taken on Satur-
day last in other cases of this kind by Mr. Huddleston
relative to certain evidence being received. He intended
to claim his right to examine the witnesses, with the
view to elicit the proceedings which took place in the
defendant's room on several occasions subsequent to the
date of the information, and in order that he might
prove that the room was used for betting purposes. The
" using" of the room was not an insulated act, but con-
sisted of a succession of acts, and it was necessary to
prove the fact to show that the defendant habitually
used the room for the purposes be had described. He
did, not claim this right with the view of founding a cri-
minal information, but for tne purpose of showing that
the room was used by the defendant for betting within
the meaning of the act.

Matthew Dunton, police-constable 425, said he went
to the White Swan, in Farringnon-street, on the 27th of
May, ani entered a room at the end of the bar, where he
saw the defendant and a man sitting at a table at the
futrher end -of the room. There were several cards
with the names of horses and races upon them lying on
the table. There were a number of persons standing
round the table, upon which was a small desk azd
book, in which all the bets were entered, and their con-
versation referred to horse-racing. The defendant an-
swered all questions put to him by those present.
Witness made a bet with him upon "West Langton,"
for 2s. 6d., the odds being 80 to 1 in half-crowns.
When he paid the 2s. 6d. the defendant gave him a card
on which he wrote " 423 —J. P." A man present asked
him when the settlement would take place, and the de-
fendant replied, "The day after the race ; and if I am
not here, my man will be." The man was out of the
room at that time, but he carne in soon after. He
knew the man, having seen him on several previous oc-
casions, and on the 26th of May he bouttht a book of
him, for a penny, containing the following advertise-
ment :—" Mr. J. Palmer continues to execute commis-
sions at the White Swan,' Farringdon-street." Witness
went there al-m on the 2d of June.

Mr. Huddlestone objected to the evidence relating to
matters which took place after the 27th of May, but
not before that date. The defendant was summoned
for using the room on a certain day, and it was per-
fectly absurd to prove the "using" subsequent t,) that
day. Suppose, for instance, the defendant had been
summoned on the first occasion of his entering that
room, the charge would be for an offence committed
up to that date,' in which case it would be clear he
could not have used it within the meaning of the act,
as the word "'icing" meant a continuous offence, which
oould not be continuous by one act only, and to admit
the evidence now sought to be put in would, he con-
tended, be contrary to the intention of the Legislature.
The City Solicitor submitted that a single act was
sufficient to prove a " using" within the meaning of
the act of Parliament, and be was content to rest his
case upon the evidence am it stood, if the magistrate
decided he was not entitled to call evidence to show,
by subsequent acts, that the defendant did not use the
room in question for betting purposes.
Mr. Huddlestone said it had been ruled by the Court
that subsequent acts could not be referred to in evi-
dence, and it was customary not to depart from a rule
when once laid down. One visit did not constitute
a " using," and if the evidence objected to were re-
ceived, the information would consequently be laid be-
fore the offence was committed.
Sir R. W. Carden decided that the evidence could not
be received.

Witness cross•examined.—He did not see defendant
on the 26th of May ; but he had seen him there on pre-
vious occasions.

Re-examined.—The man was stationed at the defend-
ant's elbow. On the 26th the man sat in the same seat
that was occupied by the defendant on the 17th, and
bets were made upon both occasions.
Edward Briscoll corroborated this witness's testimony.
Mr. Huddlestone, in answer to the charge, admitted
that the defendant was there on one occasion making
bets ; but there was no evidence to connect him with
the other man. He should not, in the present instance,
argue upon the Act of Parliament, as that had been done
in a superior court ; but he would call the worthy Alder-
man's attention to the act, to show that it contemplated
putting down an intolerable nuisance, arising from per-
sons opening houses for the purpose of taking money
from all comers, to the injury of the industrious classes
of society. He had contended, and always should, until
he had the decision of a higher tribunal, that it was
only to put down the owners or occupiers of betting-
' houses, that the act, under which these proceedings were
taken, was passed, and it never contemplated interfering
with the practice of betting upon horse-racing, as it had
hitherto been carried on. Such was the expressed in-
tention of the. Attorney• General when he brought the
measure forward ; and if it were not so, there was not a
nobleman who subscribed at the Grand Stand at Epsom
or at Tattersall's but would be liable to the same mode
of procedure ; nor, indeed, would a man making his
bets, with his book in hand, as he leaned against a post
in the Stock Exchange, be exempt from a prosecution
for using the post for betting purposes.
Sir W. Carden said he did not think that argument
applied in this case. In his opinion, if a man had a
book on the Stock Exchange post, and persons resorted
thereto for betting purposes, the man would be liable.

Mr. Huddlestone said the act was never intended to
apply to p.rsons visiting a room so used, unless they
took an active part in conducting the business. His
client was neither the occupier nor owner, nor did he
exercise any dominion or control over the room ; con-
sequently he could not be found guilty of using the
room in either sense, unless evidence to the contrary
was adduced, to justify the magistrate in convicting him.
It bad not even been shown that he was in any way
connected with the other man, who sat in the same seat
on the previous day ; bud the fed of two moms oca>z•

[PRICE 4D. STAMPED bD•

eying the same seat on different occasions was no evi.
deuce to identify them together. He, therefore, con
tended that no offence had been committed, and that the
summons should, therefore, be dismissed.
Sir R. W. Carden, having consulted with Mr. Martin,
the chief clerk, said he had carefully gene through the
whole of the evidence, and he could come to no other
conclusion but that the defendant wa- a person using
the room in question for betting nurposes, within the
terms of the act, and he therefore deemed tbo defendant
guilty-of the 'offence charged in the information.
Minton, the officeet then gave the evidence previously
objected to, with regard to the subsequent acts of the
defendant, to guide the alderman in fixing the amount
of the peral'y.
Sir R. W. Carden said it must be apparent to all who
had heard the evidence that the defendant had books and
cards printed, and kept a clerk to assist him in the
management of an e tablishment of a most dangerous
description ; for while the proprietors of other betting
places would not take a bet of less than 10s., the defen-
dant, it had been shown, had taken 2s. 6d., and it was
not known how much less, so that it was quite clear he
would take from the very claoiss the act was intended to
prot'ct—viz., the poor. He, therefore, fined him 501.,
or, in defan It., two months' in p-isonment.
Mr. Huddlestone gave notice of appeal, and the bail
was fix rd for two sureties in 501. each, and the defendant
in his ovri recognisances in 100/.
These proceedings appear to have created quite a panic
among the betting fraternity in the-City, where tbey have
1 dely taken refuge, and numbers of persons attended both
examinations to hear the investigation. The character
of the audience on these occasions may be judged of by
the following letter which was pic'ted up in the justice-
room at the termination of the inquiry :
" Sunhill, June 8.

" Sir—there his not many horses arrived hear yet but
I think that ether veteran or Libellist will win the Ascot
Stakes Libellist is A very good goer he Gallop this Morn-
ing with Polestar and went the Course and old veteran
go better and freer than ever I see go before and for the
Vireo year old Triennial back Pitapat and for the New
Stakes back Sydney—he A verry good Looking horse and
a verry good goer. "T. LESTER."