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 rausal of the divi-
sional justices to grant and renew public•house licences,
M. Sergeant Adams, the Assistant judge, presided. The
magi*trates present were—Mr. Pownall, Mr. Wilks, Mr.
Witham, Mr. Tubbs, Mr. Danou, Mr. Laurie, Captain
Carpenter, Mr. Brooking, Mr. Marriott, Mr. lILVs
Mr. Turner, Mr. Warner, Mr. Woodward, Mr. Arrn-
stbong, Mr. Bentley, Mr. aimmiek, Mr. Arden, Mr.
Rose, and Mr. France.
ILLEGALITY OF BKTTING LISTS.

The first case on the list wag-Ives-appeal, by Samuel
Searle, against the refusal of the jusiiiees of the division
of St. Martin-in-the-Fields to renew a licence, under the
9th Gee. IV., c. 61, to sell excisable liquors in the house
called the Salisbury Arms, Durham-street, Strand.
Mr. Clarkson appeared for the appellant, Ale. Ballan-
tine in support of the decision of the justices. .„ •
Mr. BALLANTINE, in opening the case, said be 41 the
honour to appear before the Court on behalf b 1 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
licensin4 magistrates for that division, they thought
it right to refuse 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 char'e against Mr. Searle was,
that he 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 hefts. It had been decided compe-
tent authority that " betting lists " came' wifbin the
meaning of the term " gambling," and as the licence
prohibited gambling of all kinds being carried oh; 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 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. 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 pnblic•house. The question here would,
therefore, be, he presumed, were these betting lists a
species of gaming. and did the appellant knowingly suf-
fer it in his house?
Mr. Bowers 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
continue 1, 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 Loathed JUDGE said they had better dispose of
one case bef,,re they entered upon another.
Serge sot 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 cf Tat-
tersall's list 4, 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 hal always been considered an extremely well-
conducted one.
`rtic Learned JUDGE aske I if these lists were not the
same as the se published in the nosvepapers?
Mr. CLARKSON said they were.
The Lz.arned JUDGE then observ3d that he could see
no difference between the looking at a written list and at
a list published in the daily papers.
Mr. J3ALLINTINE said he had nothing further to urge
for the justice?.
M. CLARKSON—I should like to know what I have to

answe:.
The Learned thirCE-If as the matter stands, it was a
mere qtmition of law, I should have no doubt about it,
but it is a question of discretion entirely for the bench
to determine..

• Mr. CLARK sort 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 for any reason, and it was of little avail for a
publican to appeal to that court against a grievance in-
flicte.l 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 daring that
period he had conducted it most respectably there was a
memerial from his neighbours to the court to testify—
there was not the slightest imputation upon his charac-
ter as a reseeceable man, and the only possible reason
that could be set forth for the refusal of his licence was,
that the niagistratss 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 to much in vogue a short time ago,
the oeieions of souse of the most eminent men at the
bar was taken as to their legality, and these opinions,
- he weak' inform the Court, were teat the sweeps cane
within the operation of the Lottery Act, and cense-
qeeetly they were repressed. But between a Derby
sweep and a mere het upon the issue of a race nothing
could be more distinct —the one was perfectly illegal, the
leget!ity of the other could not be impeached—sod
tnerefore nothing could Le more mistaken than the no•
tiers that betting lists wore of the same character as
• D by sweeps.
Too Learned JUDGE said that there could be no doubt
but :hat Derby sweeps were illegal. The simple lees-
tiea before the Court was this, was it gaming for a pub•
licen to allow a list of the state of the odds, copied from
Tattersall's, and published in the newspapers, to lie on
his coaster for the inspection of his customers.
NT:. Meets said it was in the discretion of the magi-
strates to rears,- or grant a licence, and he thought this
was a matter of fact within their discretion.
Mr. CeeaxsoN, so far from denying then would ad-
Mit, that it was 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, tyranny, and absolutism were not the fair and
legitioaate exercise of that discretion the law had given
to the magistracy. They had that discretion given them
to see the law carried out and obeyed. Here that dis-
cretion he I been exercised where there had been no vio-
lation of the law. Horse racing was made legal for the
encouragement of the bread of good horses; and who
would say that the making of a bet upon the issue of a
race was unlawful, or that the exhibition of a list in a
public-house was an act as illegal as the keeping of
Derby sweeps. In sores cases when bets were made, the
landlord became stakeholder, but he had no profit
directly or indirectly, excepting the custom that the lists
brought to his house. He thought the legality of these
palpable that he had nothing to answer.
betting lists se
The refusal of his licence on that account was at least
an unsound exercise of discretion, but of course the
appellant must submit to the principle the Court might
adopt; and if the Court made the condition, that if his
licence was renewed he must descontinue the lists, of
course he would conform.
The Learnel JUDGE said the case now wore a different
aspect. Mr. Clarkson lied said that the landlord be-
came stakeholder; thereby he becetne a party tu. the
transaction. He certainly thought betting gamicg; but
a landlord could not he held responsible for the act of
• any two persons who chose to make a bet in his house;
but when he became a stakeholder between 'those
parties, it appeared to him that he was knowi,pgly suffer-
n-1 gaming in his house, contrary to the takes of his
ice nee.
Mr. CLARYSON—He derives no profit whatever by be-
coming stakeholder.
Several magistrates suggested that ha profited by the
custom brought to the house by the betting lists .
Mr. POWS&LL said the words of . the Act were em-
plateic and decisive-46 no gaming whatever."
Mr. CIARKSOI4 acid as this was the decision of the
beset.; his client must submit. If he persisted, and had
his licence refused, he might keep his house as a beer-
shop, and thee there was not the slightest power on the
part of any authority to interfere with the betting lists,
•if they were continued. If the bench, therefore, would
renew the licence, he would promise to' discontinuebet-
- tiug lists for the future.
. The-magistrates then renewed the licence upon this
• promise-
. The Learned JUDGE said the bench were unanimously
of „Finion that these betting lists were "gaming;" and
therefore, by the publicity given to. the proceedings
titere, the trade would have a dietinctintismatem that the
eceeees of tees° who persisted in keeping betting lists
would be endaueered.
The magistrates below had
t taken a very judicious courseie_bringing the matte for_
wnrd. Any future infraction of the law in this respect
would be severely dealt with, and this the bench wished
to be understood. Dais licence was granted, with 10/.
tests t) be paid by the appellant, with this_ intimation,
also that he must discontinue the betting lists.
' In the cases of Joseph Barr, of the Windsor Castle,
and of Saffory Middlet sn, of the White. Swan, Longs
acre, the renewal of whose licensees had been refused on
the same grounds, they were granted, upon the promise
that betting lists should be discontinued in their houses,
• .each of these appellants paying 10/. costs.
HEAD v. TRE JUSTICES OF THE MARYLEDONE DIVISION,
This was an appeal aessinst a refusal to renew the
• licence to the-Hope, Ste hen- ts eere•
Mr. Flunanutrroese saidlnic-'op.lpes'e a Lisson-fed
this appeal on be-
half of the justices, who refused to renew the licence on
the ground that the appellant had suffered music and
Shute:age and card-pl.eying in his house, but more
.particularly fur the manner in which the apptl-
,;laut facilitated the escape. from his house of is man
..whom a woman accused of robbing her in the room
where the dancing was going on. When the ofiic _Ts
-arrived the gas was turned Off and the men 'c away;
but • y
wa ;
hut he was afterwards taken, tried at this --cf•tourt, apd
'sentoneod to six months' hard labour. These
cetennueichted to the justices by the Commissioners wereersof
Police, and the justices felt bound es refuse the liLte
Evidence was gone into, but it rather disprovedntc'le.n
proved that the appellant was concerned in Ira
putting tne
gas out on the occasion in question.
Mr. CLARKSON addressed the Court for the appellant.
After some discussion the licence was renewed, with
an intimation that music and dancing were to be discon-
tinued, and that all publicans who had music and
dancing in their houses, sad had their licences refused
in consequence of anything that occurred from those
. accessories, would have but little chance of success on
appeal to the Quarter Sessions.