The Sun.
London, England, 1868-07-02 00:00:00

Egyptian, 7 per Cent ••• --
De. Secoad Issue -
Do. £CSoO Ronds
Do. /106 Bonds B3
Do. 1804
Do.. Account
Do. .£5 'U Bonds —
D0...C10() Bonds .... 83
Government Railway Debentures .... 921
Greet; 5 por Cont., 1824. 5, ex Coups —
1)o. Account
Do. Cou;Dn2
Do. Ace )unt
G•tatelnala 5 per Cent • .
Honduras Gov. Rail. Loan., lop. Ct., £25 p
It .;iati 5 per Cert., 1.65 —
Do, Account . —
Do. llaremmana Raiway —
31-)xicar. 3 per Cent
Ditto for Account
D.. 1867 —
Pc 6 per Cent. A nglo-Freueb —
llontevit.‘ar, 6 per Cent,. .. —
Vloorislt Imperial 5 per Cent
Ne w Granada —
Do 3 Per Can —
Do. Defer.-e.l
Do Lekiet Warrants (fleetare,)
Per iTian 5 I.er Cent. 1865
Do Account .. .. 79 1 84 9
Do 4i per Cent. (Uribarren) -
Do li per Cont., It-'62 -
Do Account - -
Port,iguese 3 per Ct., 1853,'6, 7, 11,'6i1,'2,'
Do. do. 1 67 391-
Do. do. Sc ir, .£2O paid
11 .ssian 5 per Cent., Itiz2, £ Si B6f
Do 4i per Cent. 1850 . ...... ....... 8-, i
Do lf Per Gent., 1860
Do 8 per Cent., 1859
Do e per Cent., I'i62
. . ,„.. „.„ .

Do. Anglo-Dutch, 1861, £lOO Bonds., -
Do. do. £Bl 15s. do
Do., 186 G, £lOO Bonds 9oi
Do. do £B4 los. do —
r o Nicolas Railway 6O 1
Sa ..t inlay, n per Cent —
Sp tnisli ;) per Gen . —
Do. Accsunt
Do. 1867 ..... 36i
Do. New Deferrect —
Do. Account
Do. Passive —
Do. Ice&unt
Do. Corn. Cert. of Coul.. not fuuded
Do. Account
Tuniish 6 per:Cent. —
Do Account
Do 6 per Cent. 1858 —
Do Account
Do £lOO Bonds

Do 6' per Cent., 1862
Do Account
Do £IOC Bonds 64 3}
Do. 1863
Do 5 per Cent., 1865
Do Account
Do 6 per Cent., 1865 - 5 st
Dividends on the above payable in Londu..
Austrian o par Cent. Ex 10 Florins
Belgian. 4i per cent., Ex. 25f.
Dutch 2'4- per (lent. Ex. 12 Guil.
Do Account
French Rentes, 3 per Cent., Ex. 25f.
5 per Cent. 1831, Ex. 25f.
Do. Account 5ll
TWO O'CLOCK.
Consols, Money 941 5 xa
Do. Account, July 9 - xd

THE BETTING LISTS AT NEWCASTLE

RACES.

At the Manors Police-court, Newcastle, on Tues-
day (before the Mayor, Mr. Alderman Pollard, and
H. Milvain, Esq.), a number of betting men, who
had exposed lists at the recent race meeting, we re
summoned under the Act for the suppression of
Betting Houses. Thirty-two summonses had been
issued, but only about a dozen of them served upon
the parties ; and the only defendant who appeared
was Charles Heed, of Leeds, though he was sum-
moned as Charles Heads.

Detective Superintendent Dixon proved that he
served the summonses on the other defendants, who
had not attended in answer to them.

Capt. Sylvester, chief constable, conducted the
case against the defendant Heed, and stated that he
had bee❑ summoned under the 16th and 17th Vic-
toria, cap. 19, sec. 3, which sets forth as follows :
" Any person who, being the owner or occupier
of any house, office, room, or other place, or a per-
son using the same, shall open, keep, or use the same
for the purpose hereinbefore mentioned, or either
of them ; and any person who, being the owner or
occupier of any house, room, office, or other place,
shall knowingly and wilfully permit the same to be
opened, kept, or used by any other person for the
purposes aforesaid, or either of them ; and any
person having the care and management of, or in
any manner assisting in conducting, the business
of any house, office, room, or place opened, kept,
or used for the purposes aforesaid, or either of them,
shall, on summary conviction thercof before any two
justices of the peace, be liable to forfeit and pay such
penalty, not exceeding one hundred pounds, as shall
be adjudged by such justices, and may be further
adjudged by such justices to pay such costs attend-
ing such conviction as to the sail justices shall
seem reasonable ; and ou the non-payment of such
penalty and costs, or in the first instance, if to the
said justices it shall seem fit, may be committed to
the common gaol or house of carrection, with or
without hard labour, for any time not exceeding six
calendar months." The defendant was the owner
or occupier of an office, for the purpose of betting,
on the Town Moor, on June 23. It was a tempo-
rary office, erected on four posts, and he believed
that it had a desk. He should prove by a witness
that the defendant was the occupier of the office,
was receiving bets on certain races that were taking
place, and conducting the business himself. He then
referred to the case of Sliaw v. Morley, which came
before the justices of the borough of Doncaster o❑
September 19, 1867, when a conviction was ob-
tained, and a penalty of £25 and costs imposed,
which was appealed against in the Court of Exche-
quer on April 22, when Chief Baron Kelly said—
" It seems to me plain that what is here described
is office' or place.' It makes no difference
whether such a structure be roofed or roofless, on
wheels or not on wheels, moveable or otherwise ;
it is not the less an office and a place. And as
for the purpose for which this structure was used,
it is clearly within the meaning of the Act." The
conviction was affirmed by the higher Court. He
then called

Detective Superintendent Dixon, who stated that
on June 23, the first day of the races, be saw the
defendant at the upper silo of the ring, outside
the ring, and he was making bets in an erection
raised from the ground with four posts, and he had
a book. Defendant was standing on the erection
inside, but he (witness) would not like to say whe-
ther there was a desk or not, for he thought there
was merely a sort of handrail. There was no cover
on the erection. The defendant had his name on a
sheet of paper on the erection, Charles Heads—
(Defendant—Charles Heed is the proper name ;
that is my name)—•and the name was also on his
belt. Ile saw the defendant take several bets. On
the 23th he served the defendant with a summons
in the same place. He gave his name and was
very civil.

Defendant—Was I inside or outside ?

Witness—l believe at the time I took your name
you were on the outside of the office, on a stool.
You bad a clerk inside.

Defendant—Did I pay any money?
Witness—l don't think I saw you pay any
money; but I saw you receive some.
The defendant, in reply to the charge, said he
had been greatly misled, and was not aware that
he bad been guilty of a breach of the law in any
shape or form, and if the least warning had been
given to him that ho was doing wrong he would not
have taken the place. Ile did not get his livieg
by going to race meetings, for he was a tradesman.
A gentleman came to him with a policeman, No.
125, when he was outside the ring, and asked
him if he was going to stand there like that, or was
going to have one of those erections, and he asked
if they were allowed. The gentleman told him
they made a difference in the charge, and gave him
a ticket, s tying that if he had a stool to stand on the
charge for three days would be 55., but for a box
like that it would be 10s. 61. The policeman was
along with the gentleman at the time. If he had
broken the law, they had been his rulers. Ile bad
travelled from Leeds that morning on purpose to
answer the summons, bectuse he did not wish to du
anything wrong in any shape or form.
The Bench retired, and after an absence of a few
minutes returned, when the Mayor said they had
carefully considered the case. There had been a
clear breach of the law, but on account of the can-
lid way in which the defendant had acted, they
lined him in the mitigated penalty of 10s., but
hoped it would be a caution to him.
Warrants were granted against the men who had
' lot attended in answer to the summonses served
ipon tiaem.—Neweastie Chronicle.