The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-16 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
The Court sat yesterday, at Clerkenwell, for the pur-
pose of hearing appeals against the refusal of the divi-
sional justices to grant and renew public-house licences.
Mr. Sergeant Adams, the Assistant-judge, presided. The
magistrates present were—Mr. Pownall, Mr. Wilks, Mr.
Witham, Mr. Tubbs, Mr. Denou, Mr. Laurie, Captain
Carpenter, Mr. Brooking, Mr. Marriott, Mr. Ha!swell,
Mr. Turner, Mr. Warner, Mr. Woodward, Mr. Arm-
strong, Mr. Bentley, Ir. Hammack, Mr. Arden, Mr.
Rose, and Mr. France.

ILLEGALITY OF BITTING LISTS.

The first case on the list was an appeal, by Samuel
Searle, against the refusal of the justices of the division
of St. Martin-in-the-Fields to renew a licence, under the
9th Geo. IV., c. 61, to sell excisable liquors in the house
called the Salisbury Arms, Durham-street, Strand.
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the appellant, Mr. Ballan-
tine in support of the decision of the justices.
Mr. BALLANTINE, in opening the case, said he had the
honour to appear before the Court on behalf of the
justices of the division in which the appellant's house
was situated. The appellant was the landlord of a
public house, called the Salisbury Arms, in Dur-
ham-street, Strand, and at the last meeting of the
licensing
,magistrates for that division, they thought
it right to refuse to renew the licence to that house ;
but tfey did not adopt that measure until abundant
warning had been given to him, which warning he had
disregsrded. The charge against Mr. Searle was,
that ho had knowingly suffered gambling in his
house, in contravention of the terms of his licence—a
species of gambling from which great evil resulted—
namely, betting lists. It had been decided by compe-
tent authority that " betting lists " came within the
meaning of the term " gambling," and as the licence
prohibited gambling of all kinds being carried on, on
the premises, the justices had no alternative but to
carry out and enforce what they conceived to be strictly
the law, namely, that no publican who suffered this
kind of gambling to be carried on in his house was
entitled to have bis licence renewed when the pro-
per time for withholding it had arrived. The ques-
tion was one of great importance, and if the Court af-
firmed what had been done by the Court below, the
•effect no doubt would be a very beneficial one to the
public generally.
The Learned JUDGE asked for the Duke of Rich-
mond's Act, 8 and 2 Victoria.
Mr. CLARKSON said that Act legalised wagers, but
gave no legal means of recovering them. Nobody could
say that it was a violation of the law to make a bet upon
the issue of a horse race.
The Learned JUDGE said the words in the Act of Par-
liament, the Licensing Act, 9 Geo. IV., were very dis-
tinct, and were to the effect, that no unlawful game, or
gambling, or any gaming whatever, should be per-
mitted iu a public-house. The question here would,
therefore, be, ho presumed, were these betting lists a
species of gaming, and did the appellant knowingly suf-
fer it in his house?
Mr. Bonk's' said he appeared for a publican, who was
in the same position as.this appellant. He did not ques-
tion the power, or deny that it was in the discretion of
the magistratee, to refuse to renew any licence, and, as
the magistrates of that division had determined to re-
fuse licences in every case where the betting lists were
continues, his client, Mr. Barr, of Long-acre, was ready
to promise that nothing of the kiad should ever take
place in his house:for the future.
The Learned JUDGE said they had better dispose of
one case before they entered upon another.
Sergeant Thompson, of the F division, and another
officer, then gave evidence, which proved the fact of
Mr. Searle having had betting lists exposed publicly in
front cf the bar of his house, and that parties had fre-
quented the house to make bets, taking the list as their
guide. , The witnesses said the lists were copies of Tat-
tersall's lists, and gave the then state of the odds, in
favour or against horses entered for different races.
Parties went to houses where these lists were kept and
made bets on tho various races, according to the state of
the odds, as given in the lists. The witnesses said the
house had always been considered an extremely well-
conducted one.
The Learned JUDGE askel if these lists were not the
same as those published in the newspapers?
Mr. CLARKSON said they were.
The Learned JUDGE then observed that he could see
no difference between the looking at a written list and at
a list published in the daily papers.
Mr.l.3ahhasrrNE said he had nothing further to urge
for the justices.
Mr. ChanissoN--I should like to know what I have to
answer.
The Learned JUDGE—If as the matter stands, it was a
mere question of law, I should have no doubt about it,
but it is a qnestion el discretion entirely for the bench
to determine.
Mr. CLARKSON then addressed the Court. He did not
in any way deny that it was entirely in the discretion of
the magistrates below to refuse to renew or grant a
licence tor any reason, -and it was of little avail for a
publican to appeal to that court against a grievance in-
flictedupon him by the exercise of that discretion, if he
did not speelehis mind freely and fally. For ten years
had Mr. Searle kept this house, and that during that
period ho' had conducted it most respectably there was a
memorial from his nsighboura to the court to testify—
there was not the slightest imputation upon his charac-
ter as a reareetahle man, and the only possible reason
that could be set forth for the refusal or his licence was,
that the magistrates had erroneously and mistakenly, be
would satisfy the Court, deemed these betting lists to
partake of the character of Derby' sweeps. When
Derby sweeps were so much in vogue a short time ago,
the opinions of some of the most eminent men at the
bar was taker' as t i their legality, and these opinions,
he would inf,irrn the Court, were that. the sweeps came
within the eperation of the Lottery Act, and conse-
quently they' were repreised. But between a Derby
sweep and Is there' bet upon the issue of a race nothing
could 'hormonedistinct—the one was perfectly illegal, the
legality of the other could not be impeached—and
therethre nothing could be more mistaken than the no.
tion that betting lists, were of.: the same character as
Derby sweep. ,
The Leereed JUDGE said that there could be no doubt
but that Derby sweeps were illegal, .The sinaple ques-
tion before the Court was this, was it gaming fora pub-
lican to allow a Nit of the state of the odds,. copied from
Tattersall'S, and published in the newspapers, to lie on
his counter for the inspection of bis cusecjeaers. I
Mr: Wreeis said it was in the' discretion of the magi-
strates iorefur or grant a licence, and be thought this
was a 'nester of fact within their discretion.
Mr.eech.teresoN, so fir from denying that, would ad-
mit that iteWas so, and though' magistrates had it in
their diseretion to refuse.or grant licences, they must
recollect that, in' the opinion of Englishmen, oppres-
sion, tyrapay,,a,ech absolutism were not the teir and
legitiniiite exercise or that discretion the law had given
to the mfsgistracy.' °T. hay' had that discretion given them
to seethe laW carried out and sbeyed. Here that dis-
cretion flea been exercised whereahere, had been no vie
lation .91
the toe: florae racing was Made legal for the
encourageinent of the bread of good horses; and who
would say that the making of a
_het upon the issue of a
the reliihitio,nof a list in a
race wasvful, OA;
publiteliquae ainstict as, illeesilsae the keeping of
Derby *weer., Ip Sionie cares when bets were made, the
landlord, ' heceme s-telk;:h,6l(l. r, .but he had no profit
directly'ot indirectly, nicceeting the custom that the lists
brought to his house. He thought the legality of these
betting lists so palpable that he had nothing to answer.
refusal of his licence on that account was at leait
an unsound exercise of discretion, but of course* the
appellant Must *Omit to the principle the Court might
adept; and if the 'Court made the condition, that if his,
licence Was "renewed he must discontinue. the lists, of
course he would conform.
Thi-L-sarned JUDGE said the case now wore a different
"Peet- 'Mr. 'Clarkson had Najd that the landlord be-
came stakeholder; thereby he became a party to the
transaction. ' He certainly thought betting gaming; but
a landlord eYiiild not be held responsible fur the act of
any taro person's' who chose to make a bet in his house;
but when he became a stakeholder between those
partici; itifpileared to him that he was knowipgly suffer-
n% gaining in his house, contrahy to the tabus of his
ice nee.

Mr. CLtaxsort—He derives no profit whatever by be-
coming stakeholder.
Several rnagt6trstes suggested that he profited by the
custom brought to the house by the betting lists .
Mr. Powxatr. said the words of the Act were em-
phatic' and deeisirie—" tujiarning
whatever."
mr. CLaaitsox said as this was the decision of the
bench, his client must submit. If he persisted, and had
hie lie,ence refuied, he aught keep his. house as a beer-
shop, arid' thedtiaere was not the slightest power on the
part of any authority,to interfrre with the betting lists,
if they' -were centinned. If the bench, therefore, would
renew the licence, he would promise to-discontinue bet-
tint. liqi for the future.
~h 0 migiArates then renewed the :licence upon this
p i3O.
said the
. . .
said the bench were unanimous)
-that 'these betting lists Were'gn'he Learned JuDGE
"
gathing i" and
of opinion.
by the publicity given to the proceedings
ther,f_rre
' de. would have a distinct intimation that the
there Ow trade
t (lin keeping betting -lists
would, . hose who persisted .
licences- of t
. l'iic magistretes below
had
would, 'be endangered...
us coarse 111 .
brinoing the matter for-
taken a very judicious
infraction, of the law in this respect
ward. Any future
with,au _ .
d this the bench wished
would'be severely dealt
licence was granted, with 10/.
to be Understood.. .Thisl
appellant,.
with
this
intimation,.
'oats, to be,paid by the aPPe also thathe must. discontinue the betting lists.
In the. -eases of Joseph Barr, of the Windsor Castle,
.., b .-
nn
and of Saffory• Middl, toe, of the White wan, .1., g.
-
acre, the renewal of whose lieenoess had is e -er.n refused on
n
the same gronnels,they were granted, upon --
the Promise
houses,
that betting lists should be discontinued in their
each of these appellants paying 101. costs. ,
HEAD V. titE !llOSTicks or THE HARYLENONF. DIVISION.
This was' an aPpeal against a refusal to renew the
licence to the .hope, teplien-,treet, Lisson-grove.
Mr. HUDDLESTaNE said he opposed this appeal on be-
half of the.. justices,-who refused to renew the licence on
the ground -that the appellant. had suffered music and
dancing and card-playing in his house, but more
particularly for the mariner in which the uppel-
lant fsellittited the escape from , his house of a man
whom a/vOorrra,rt accused of robbing her in the room
where
the, daneurig wat.; going . on. When the officers
arrived tho'gas wa-, trimed r,ft rind the In.u.goi away;
but he was afterwards ."t7.ke:l, tried it this court, and
sentenced to six months' hard labour. These fact„ "-. -esa mete were
communicated- to the justices by the Commissioners of
Police, and the justices telt bound to refuse the licence.
Evidence was gone into, but it rather disproved than
-ed, that th ,ppellant was concerned in putting the
:anion in• question.
addressed the Court for the appellant.
!ussion the licence was renewed, with
muse and dancing were to be discon
'all publicans who had music and
ouses, and had their licences refused
' anything that occurred from those
have but little cintuce of mom on
1,9 r essions.

proved-, that the ap
in the °cc
f.INF• BON
•
• , Blatt
d:ifofin t that
Uwe that
datrci..• • it he
re of
seidepp.or ' auk!
oppe • uarl
`<t N