The Sun.
London, England, 1868-05-22 00:00:00

THE LEGALITY OF DERBY SWEEPS.

Mr. Ilenry Wilson, news- agent, of 63, Ber-
mondsey-street, Southwark, was summoned before
Mr. Burcham, at the Southwark Police-court, by
order of the Commissioners of Police, charged thAt
he, being the occupier of and using a room in the
above house, did use the same for the purpose of
what is known as a " Derby Sweep," contrary to
the 16th and 17th Vic., cap. 119, sec. 103.
Mr. Meadows White, instructed by Messrs. Ellis
and Ellis, solicitors to the Commissioners of Police,
prosecuted ; and Mr. Sleigh defended.
Mr. Meadows White said that in consequence of
the vast number of racing sweeps existing, chiefly
in the crowded portions of the metropolis, and the
mischief caused by them, the Commissioners of
Police bad thought proper to take proceedings
against the defendant, under the 16th and 17th
Vic., cap. 119, sec. 103, according to the wording
of the summons. The Legislature bad considered
advisable to pass such an act, and in taking these
proceedings the Commissioners desired his worship's
opinion. Placards, of which the following is a copy,
were conspicuously placed in the defendant's shop-
window to entice the passers-by H. Wilson's
Derby Sweep. Sixth year. To be drawn on Mon-
day, the 25th of May, 1868; One thousand mem-
bers at 2s. 6d. each. First horse, £4O ; second,
£25 ; third, £l5 ; among starters, £lO ; non-
starters; £l6 ss. ; all prizes to be paid in full, no
deduction. One thousand at 2s. 6d., £125. De-
ducted from that—discount to agents, 5 per cent.,
£6 5s ; commission, advertising, &c.,
£lO. Money
paid on Saturday after the race. All money not
claimed within ten days will be forfeited."
Mr. Burcham was of opinion that a similar case
had been decided to be no offence.

Mr. Meadows White thought that the case alluded
to was betting under some trees in Hyde-park. The
case now before his worship was for using a room
for the purpose of receiving money to be paid on
the event of a horse-race. The defendant, by his
placard and receipt which he gave for the half-
crown, promised to pay to the purchaser, in the
event of his winning, a certain sum of money.

Mr. Sleigh, on behalf of the defendant, a sta-
tioner and newsagent, said that he merely received
the half-crowns as agent to the subscribers, to dis-
tribute after the race was over. He contended that
the present summons did not apply to the case.
The act of Parliament clearly defined betting. The
defendant did not keep any portion of his premises
for betting. The first section set forth, any house,
office, or room open for betting purposes. If the
Commissioners of Police wished to convict the de-
fendant they must prove that he kept a room or
office fur that purpose.
Mr. Burcham observed that in the preamble of
the Act the word betting was made use of, and
nothing else.
Mr. White was of opinion that the defendant
came within the meaning of the Act, as he received
money on a racing event. He called
Sergeant John Pope, 6 M, who said he knew the
defendant. A week ago he went to his shop, 63,
Bermondesey-street, and purchased a ticket for a
Derby Sweep, for which he paid him 2s. 6d. There
were several placards in the window inviting
passers-by to purchase them.
Mr. Burcham was of opinion that the case before
him did not come within the meaning of the act of
Parliament. It had been decided that selling
tickets for racing sweeps did not come within the
ordinary meaning of betting. The defendant did
not promise to pay out of his own pocket any
money. He did not bet. He merely was entrusted
by persons to rec Ave money and distribute the
same. If any offence was committed it came within
the Lottery Act, and not within the act of Parlia-
ment under which he was summoned. Under
these circumstances he dismissed the complaint.
Mr. Meadows White informed his worship that
he should consult the Commissioners of Police as
to asking for a case to go to a superior court, as the
question at issue was of the utmost importance to
I the public.