The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-08-01

ment, the act Of 1853 was aimed, not at
betting on race courses, but on the keeping
OF q place for the purposes OF betting.
Lord Justice LINpLEY concurred In the
view that the Gaming Houses act was
aimed at betting houses. not at betting any
where. The Legislature clearly did not In
tend, he said, to prohibit all betting; some
Limitation, therefore, must be put upon the
expression "other places" In his opinion,
the language Of the act indicated what sort
OF q place was aimed at by the Legislature.
A betting house or office was what the
legislature had In mind. He could not
bring himself to think that q place 30 I'M
like a betting house as an English race
course was a "place" within the meaning
Of tho act. Opinions to much the same
effect were expressed by Lord Justice
LoPBs and Lord Justice SMITH. They
pointed out that betting per Sc was not
Illegal; 1t was only made illegal by
statute when carried on in prohibited
places. 1t was not too much to say,
they thought, that the word 'place," en-
ployed in the Gaming Houses act, was in
tended to ave q restricted meaning; other
wise, the title Of the statute might have
been An Act for the Suppression Of Bet
ting" There was no mention Of race
courses in the statute, the preamble to
which recited that "a certain kind of gam
ing has Of late sprung up" Now, betting on
race courses had existed for very many
years before, and could not be described as
a kind Of gaming that had Of late sprung
up. The act, In . word, was intended to
strike at betting houses or poolrooms and
not to interfere with betting on race courses,
such az had been carried on for years, nay.
for generations, before 1t was passed.
Lord Justice Gritty concurred In the view
just outlined, but Lord Justice R1GBY diff
fered from his learned brethren. He held that
the kind Of betting carried on in the Kemp
ton Park Enclosure was precisely that
which was struck at by the act Of 1853.
He thought, moreover, that a "place" need
not be a house, Office, or room, and that, IL
an Enclosure similar to that at Kempton
Park were found in the centre of a town,
and were there f%requented by bet
tors, no one would contend that It
was not a place within the meaning
Of the statute. 1t was impossible, he
further averred, to say that the user Of
a house or room, to fall within the stat
ute, must be an exclusive user by one per-
son. On the contrary, the more men per-
mitted to use a given house, or room, or
"place" for the purpose Of betting, the
greater would be the nuisance, and the
greater the probability Of mischief. 1t had
been said that the act could not apply to a
place open to the sky. Would it, then, be
maintained that a betting office could be
relieved from the operation of the statute
by the simple process of taking of the roof
The truth seems to be. II we may judge
from the title of the act of 1853, from its
preamble, and from a consideration OF the
circumstance under which it was passed,
that 1t WAS not the intention Of the legis.
lature to prohibit betting on race courses,
but further Legislation may be needed to
define precisely what was meant by
"place." AS a matter Of fact five puisne
Judges and one appeal Judge nave decided
that the word place" includes race courses,
and five appeal Judges have decided that it
does not. The case will now go to the
House OF Lords. and what the lawyers In
that chamber will decide is q toss-up.