The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-07-25
ENGIANDS BBTTING LAW.
JUDICIAL HAIR sPLirT1Na OYER
TIE MEANING OF IA PLACE"
tho Decision Or the Court ~ Appeal which
Perrnits Bcttins on Race Coursrs and u
Described ~ One or tho Most Remarkable
Acts in Surisprndence OF the Century.

Acts In Jurisprudence or the Century.
LONDON, July e.-The decision Of the English
Court of Appeal this week. which lcgalizcs bet
ting upon race courses In Great Britain. 10 one
OF the most remarkable acts In the jurisprudence
OF the century.
ut is one Of the boldcst pieces Of judicial In
terpretation-porhaps some may DO disposed to
say. OF judicial loRislatlon-which has been Of
fectod in this country" 10 the characterization
OF 1t by the Standard, and this languago Is by
no means too strong.
The most charitable description Of 1t, the only
justification OF 1t in fact, Is to say that 1t Is the
most clever example OF recent times Of the use
OF judicial sophlstries to nullify O law which
does not m the supporter public opinion.
1t was an assumption Of authority which finds
no justification in principle or in logic, and no
other occupants OF the English bench-not even
tho Lord Chief Justice himself before whom the
case had come in its earlier staRe-had dared to
adopt so questionable means for the accomplish
ment of a perhaps desirable end.
II was by curious and devious ways that the
five members OF the Court Of Appeal who over
ruled the decisions Of the lower courts reached
their conclusion. Each Judge had n reason for
his decision which differed, sometimes funda-
mentally, from those of HE associates. A sixth
member. Lord Justice Rigby, upheld the ruling
that rsce!courso betting rings are places"
W1Dnln IL meaning U u tn0 D6tLlnR ACT OF 1000,
under which prosecutions are made. The de-
cision Of the Master OF the Rolls lord Eshcr)
is 90 curious an example OF logic as used to null
lily an unpopular law by the highest court In
the British Empire, save tho House Of Lords,
that IL is well worth reading. 1t is wonderfully
clever. and also, In the opinion OF most common.
tators. fatally weak. This is his
The defendant company ore tho owners OF the
kempton Park race course and of certain stands
several stan,.s, and each stand has an Enclosure
In front OF 1t open TO the stand but rallied Off
IRON tne resi- o. ins race course oy iron reilinEss..
inclosure. Admiss on is given TO that Enclosure
and It's stand to any one who applies and makes
mission. Every person so admitted is entitled
to walk and stand in the Enclosure and in every
the Enclosure or stand can be or Is reserved
by any one for his own use when not actually
there. Many persons, pay for admission to such
among them are many professional bet.
amount as others for their admission, and who
are admitted on the same terms rs tho others.
The bookmakers. when in the inclosure, shout out
and every horse In a race, and for n certain time
they bet such odds with every one who desires
with the bookmaker the amount which he bets
against the okmak 80 that the bookmakur,
IN me case the horse nor against + which he bets docs not
the horse does win he undertakes to pay the
odus he bet against the horse.
The ker goes to the races and into tho
Enclosure Tor the purpose OF betting in the way
described with every one who will bet with him.
The bookmaker bets as a matter of business.
To bet in the way described is his business. The
businesses OF the various ,~bookmakers are as
business OF each kma is independent Of
that of every other bookmaker. No one OF them
assumes to exercise or does exercise any manner
OF exclusive use or any, part OF the Enclosure.
but walks or stands in the inclosuro
and every part OF It in the same m nner
person in the Enclosure. The description above
given OF the betting carried on at kempton
tion of the betting which is CART a on not only
at kemPlon races in the Tattersall Enclosure,
put in al rsee.co1rse inclosures in which betting
Betting Houses act such Enclosures were in like
manner trequented by bookmakers, and betting
were therein, openly and hubitually carried ON
by them and had been so carried ON since the
1t Is upon these facts that the plaintiff on the
record asks for the Injunction he claims
these facts the Judge who tried the case ought
r. Ta haye iHIn inc that the S s;GamPnny: the owners Of
fully permit the Enclosure to be used by persons
maker in a manner made Illegal by the statute
10 and II Wet. chapter ll9. 1t is impossible 10
say that the company opened. kept, or used the
Enclosure for the purpose OF the company. bet
ting with persons r%esorting thereto. II is i'm
possible, 10 say that the bookmnkcrs or any
bookmakcr opened or kept the inclosure ut all.
Inc question must De Wnether the bOOkmakers
or some or one was or were permitted to use
and did use the Enclosure illegally within the
meaning of and therefore contrary to the
statute.
This proposition raises three questions: First.
is such an Enclosure such a place AS can come
within the meaning OF the %statutef Secondly. II
yes, was the Enclosure SO used by any body rs to
make the Enclosure or any part of ii a place lie
f fis gsf Il It twas Was t used %iilHi esniKiyoa OF w sn' s s1s'u usa
knowingly and wilfully permitted by the COM
pany Il all ,hese three propositions are to be
unHWeF00 against The pnnnunV tina in inn,tinn
ought to be granted. II any one OF them is an.
swered In favor OF the company. the Injunction
that the company must have known what was
habitually done in the inclosure. II. then. VIII It
was done was Illegal. the third proposition must
be answered against the company. Ii what was
done was not illegal, the third proposition must
be answered In favor OF the company. They
cannot be said to have permitted what did not
exist.
This reduces the discussion to the first and
second propositions. In order to determine the
first and second propositions and their impor-
lance, i Is necessary. In the first place, to deter
mine what is the true construction OF the stat
ute. In order to %construe the statute the Court
is bound to consider the condition Of things ex.
the statute which are dealt with by the statute.
Inc Court IL bound IN this case to consider.
tenth particular.
The statute commences with a preamble
which IN my opinion. Is not repealed: Where.
r. sSe C opening sa n or Of F1 pIaess n enile ID I bet,t spTp hnns up by y
offices. and the re- eiving of money IN advance by
the owners or occnpicrs of such houses or
gaming by betting nor, gaming by receiving
money in advance, but by such betting being
brought about or rendered more easy by The
opening of places ealIod betting houses or
OIL es. II is not betting, y hatevcr may he It's
Kind, which. independent of locality. is struck
ficn but It Is the providing OF z locality. for par
chief to DO dealt with. Then the enacting
parts OF the statute commence thus: For
&c. Thereof +" does not moan FOR the sup.
preston OF betting -; II refers to the recited
mischief Of biting In the new manner OF bet.
ting, that is, by the manner of opening OF places
called betting houses or offices, which is a man
ner which brings about betting or makes IL moro
easy Tor many TO bet. Then tho enactment pro-
ceeds, and the description of the locality Is en-
la,ged beyond the description oil II in the pre-
amSle: Il describes not only a place called a
office. Ioom; or other place shall be opened. kept.
or used sun 1t is a kind OF locality which can
locality called a house. room, or place Is one
which can he taken and deemed to be a common
gaming house. In which persons not gaming may
be found; into which the police may force IN
trance by breaking into It, and in which they
may arrest and search peopic found In ID, though
gaming at all.
Taking into account the mischief Indicated in