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

ILLEGALITY OF BETTING LISTS.

The first case on the list was an appeal, by Samuel
Searle, against the refusal of the justices of the division
if St. Martin-in-the-Fields to renew a licence, under the
Sth Geo, IV., e. 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 Vie division in which the appellant's house
was situated. The appellant was the landlord (f 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 retthe to renew, the licence to that house;
but they did not adopt that measure until abundant
warning had been given to him, which warning he had
disregarded. The charge against Mr. Searle was,
that he bad 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 bad been decided by compe-
tent authority that " betting lists " tame within the
meaning of the term " gambling," and as the licence
prohibited gambling of all kinds being carried on, on
the promises, 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 his 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. CLAlutsoN said that Act legalised wagers, but
gave no legal means of recovering them. Nobody could
say
eT tties at e i
euL
the law
in thewtomak Act of eabet upon
the th
said the w
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 in a public-house. The question here would,
therefore, be, he presumed, were these betting lists a
species of earning. and did the appellant knowingly suf-
fer it in his house?
Mr. I.3oroxisr 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 magistrates, 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
continued, his client, Mr. Barr, of Long-acre, was ready
to promise that nothing of the kind 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 of 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 thelists were copies cf 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 the 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 asked if these listrewere 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
list published in the daily papers.
Mr. BALLANTINE said he had nothing further to urge
for the justices.
Mr. CLARKSON—I should like to know what I have to
=SWOT. • _ _

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 question of discretion entirely for the bench
to determine.

Mr. CLARKSON then addressed the Court. lie 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 for any reason, and it was of little avail for a
publican to appeal to that court against a grievance in-
flicted upon him by the exercise of that discretion, if he
"did not speak his mind freely and fully. For ten years
had Me. Searle kept this house, and that during that
period he had conducted it most respectably there was a
memorial from his neighbours-to the court to testify—
there was not the slightest imputation upon his charac-
ter as a resrectable man, and the only possible reason
that could be set forth for the refusal of his licence was,
that the magistrates had erroneously and mistakenly, he
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 taken as to their legality, and these opinions,
ho would inform the Court, were that the sweeps came
within the operation of the Lottery Act, and conse-
quently they were repressed. But between a Derby
sweep and a mere bet upon the issue of a race mthing
could be more distinct—the one was perfectly illegal, the
legality of the other could not be impeached—and
therefore nothing could Le more mistaken than the no-
tion that betting lists wore of the same character as
Derby sweeps.
The Learned JUDGE said that there could be no doubt
but that Derby sweeps were illegal. The simple ques-
tion before the Court was tliis, was it gaming for a pub•
lican to allow a list of the state of the odds, copied from
Tattersall's, and published in the newspapers, to lie on
his coanter for the inspection of his cui.tomere.
'tr. WILKS said it was in the discretion of the magi-
stra'es to refuse or grant a licence, and he thought this
was a matter-of fact within their discretion.
Mr. Cuaticsort, so far from denying that, would ad-
mit that it was so, and though magistrates had it ieu