The Law Relating to Betting, Time-bargains and Gaming

210. The laws with regard to wagers in N. S. Wales, if, indeed, they were in any way material to this case, seem to be a reproduction of 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109. Trimble v. Hill, 5 App. Ca., 342.

212. Ir. Rep., 10 C. L., 248.

214. 3 M. & G., 759.

215. 10 M. & W., 85.

216. See Stutfield’s “Tattersall’s Rules of Betting,” p. 10.

217. Dines v. Woolf, L. R. 2 P. C. 280. Weller v. Deakin, 2 C. & P. Greville v. Chapman, 5 Q. B. 731.

218. Evans v. Pratt, 3 M. & G., 759; and see 17 L. T., 323.

219. L. R. 2 P. C., 280. Weller v. Deakin, 2 C. & P. Greville v. Chapman, 5 Q. B.

220. Balfe v. West, 13 C. B., 466, at all events until he has done some official act. See Rules of Racing, Part III.

221. See Blaxton v. Pye, Wils, 309; Applegarth v. Colley, 10 M. & W., 723.

222. 3 M. & G., 768.

223. 3 M. & G., 765.

224. Morley v. Greenhalgh, 32 L. J. M. C., 93.

225. See Parsons v. Alexander, 1 Jur. N.S., 660.

226. Ovenden v. Raymond, 34 L. T. N. S., 199.

227. As to hazard, see McKinnell v. Robinson, 3 M. & W.

228. R. v. Ashton, 22 L. J. M. C., 1. 1 E. & B., 286.

229. See particularly the account of the Park Club Case (post p. 158.)

230. See Stutfield’s “Rules and Usages of the Stock Exchange”; Effingham Wilson.

231. Wells v. Porter, 3 M. & W., 722; Lyne v Siesfield, 1 H. & N., 278; Williams v. Trye, 23 L.J. Ch., 360.

233. 8 B. & Ald., 179; compare Mortimer v. MacCallan, 6 M. & W., 58, where the stock was actually delivered to the vendor.

234. 5 E. & B., 999.

235. The Act provided that money paid to settle differences could be recovered back by an action, sect. 5.

236. 1 B. & P., 3—viz., that an agent cannot set up the illegality of a transaction in answer to the principal’s claim for an account, but see post pp. 162–4.

237. 13 Ch. D., 667.

239. 33 L. T., n. s., at p. 563.

240. 4 Q. B. D., at p. 695.

241. W. N. C., 1 June, 1878; see, too, Barry v. Crosskey, 2 J. & H., 1, where this test was adopted.

243. 17 C. S. C., p. 475.

244. 4 Q. B. D. 685.

245. 5 M. & W., 462.

246. 15 Ch. Div., 207.

247. As to carrying over, see post p. 108, et seq.

248. 13 Ch. Div., 665.

249. Byers v. Beattie, 16 W. R., 279.

250. 4 Q. B. D., at p. 696.

251. 16 C. S. C., 350.

252. 33 L. T., N. S., 561.

253. This seems the result of the cases Grizewood v. Blane, 11 C. B., 526; Ex parte Marnham, 30 L. J., Bkpcy., 3.

254. 4 T. L. R., 326.

255. 17 C. S. C., 466.

256. “The evidence of Willis seems to make it clear that the customer had this option, though this feature of the case was clearer in Howat’s case (post). It does not appear whether the accounts were closed by Shaw or by defendant’s instructions, but this does not seem to affect the argument.”

257. 30 L. J. Bkpcy. 3.

258. Since the above was written the case of Stevens v. Universal Stock Exchange has been reported, 40 W.R. 494; in that case, however, it does not appear that the printed conditions gave the customer the option to treat the transactions as difference bargains.

259. See the Report of the Commissioners, p. 274, No. 6949.

260. See Report of 1878, at p. 29.

261. 4 Q. B. D. at p. 696.

262. See as to this Bongiovanni v. Société Générale, 54 L.T. n.s., 320, and Stutfield’s “Rules and Usages of the Stock Exchange:” Effingham Wilson.

263. 30 L.J. Bkpcy., 1.

264. 30 L. J. Bkpcy., 3.

265. In ex parte Turner, 3 D. & J., 46, it was held that carrying over an account would bring a bankrupt within s. 201 of the Act of 1849, and be a bar to his obtaining his discharge.

266. See Report, 1878, p. 23, Mr. Daniel’s evidence.

267. 4 Q. B. D., 690.

268. 33 L. T., N. S., 561.

269. 1870, W. N. C., 95. See also the cases quoted above as to the right of the agent to recover.

270. Ex parte Ryder, 1 De G. & J., 317; Ex parte Wade, 8 D. M. & G., 241; Ex parte Matheson, 1 D. M. & G.

271. Ex parte Turner, 3 D. & J. 46.

272. See 46 & 47 Vict., c. 52, sec. 28(3) d.

273. 9 Q. B. D., 546.

274. For the nature and incidents of this transaction, vide Coles v. Bristowe, L. R., 4 Ch. 3., and Stutfield’s “Rules and Usages of the Stock Exchange:” Effingham Wilson.

275. Not yet reported except in the newspapers, August 11, 1884.

276. 15 Q. B. D., 388.

277. 14 Q. B. D., 460.

278. “Times,” 4th April, 1892.

281. But see next page for the law as recently altered by the Gaming Amendment Act, 1892.

283. 11 Q. B. D., at p. 210.

284. See O’Connor v. Bradshaw, 5 Ex., 882; Fisher v. Bridges, 3 E. & B., 642.

285. See ante, p. 86, as to the exception of Royal Palaces.

286. See Taylor v. Smetten, 11 Q.B.D., p. 210.

287. 14 M. & W., 711.

288. See pp. 129–130.

291. The learned Serjeant is evidently using the point decided in Applegarth v. Colley—that the Statute of Anne contemplated a case where a single person lost £10.

292. 9 Q. B., 431. See, too, Mearing v. Helling, 14 M. and W., 711.

293. 2 H. & C., 912., 28 J. P., 199.

295. 11 Ch. Div., 170.

297. 10 Cox, C. C., 352.

298. 11 Q. B. D., 206.

300. 60 L. J. M. C. 116.

302. See per Pollock, C.B., in O’Connor v. Bradshaw, 5 Exch. at p. 891.

303. 3 E. & B., 642.

304. 12 Geo. II., c. 28, 1.

305. 2 Ex. Div. 422, ante p. 58.

306. Wilson v. Strugnell, 7 Q.B.D., p. 551. Kearley v. Thomson, 24 Q.B.D., 742.

307. Savage v. Madder, 36 L. J. Ex. 178.

309. Per Fry, L. J. Kearley v. Thomson.

311. See, too, Jacques v. Golightly, 2 Black 1073.

312. Allport v. Nutt, 1 C. B. 974.

314. Vide sup., p. 17.

318. 5 B. & A., 555.

321. 11 Q. B. D. 207.

323. These statutes have been set out above in the Chapter on Lotteries.

324. See post p. 161.

325. 13 Q. B. D. p. 524.

326. The importance of this as bearing on the present law of unlawful games is dealt with in Turpin v. Jenks (see post).

327. 13 Q. B. D., 377.

328. The procedure by which warrants may be issued and proceedings enforced against the keepers of gaming houses is dealt with post p. 196.

329. See sections 3 and 6, post p. 196 et seq.

330. We have already discussed the nature of gaming houses at Common Law, pp. 149–151.

331. See post for all full account of the case, 13 Q. B. D., 505.

332. 13 Q. B. D., 505.

333. The case occurred within the C Division of Police, and so properly belonged to the Marlborough Street Police Court jurisdiction; but, being public prosecution by the police, was heard at Bow Street.

334. See Crockford v. Maidenhead, 8 L. T., 217.

335. Sec. 16 of the Act of Henry forbade apprentices and artificers, &c., to play tennis, bowls, coyting, and other games.

336. As to what constitutes a game of chance, see post “Betting in a public place.”

337. 13 Q. B. D., 505.

340. 15 Q. B. D., 363.

341. 11 Ch. D., at p. 195.

342. 9 M. & W., at p. 642.

344. 1 B. & P., 296.

345. 11 Ch. D., at p. 194.

346. 5 E. & B., at p. 1016.

347. 4 Q. B. D., 685 Lyne v, Siesfield, 1 H. & N., 278.

349. 45 L. T., N. S., 512; 15 Cox, C. C., 3.

350. 8 Cox, C. C., 305; 4 Cox, 390.

351. See Smith v. Bond, 11 M. & W., 549.

352. As to the difference between the offence under this section, also those specified in ss. 1 and 3, see post p. 190.

353. 19 C. B. N. S., 765; 34 L. J. C. P., 159. See ante p. 65 as to this case.

354. L. R., 9 Q. B., at page 443. Qy. whether the case would not come with 36 & 37 Vict., c. 94.

355. 3 B. & S., 374; 32 L. J. (M. C.), 93.

356. L. R., 9 Q. B., at p. 444.

357. L. R., 9 C. P., 339.

358. L. R., 3 Ex., i. 37.

359. L. R., 9 C. P., 339. See 36 & 37 Vict., c. 94.

360. L. R., 9 Q. B., 440.

361. L. R., 10 Q. B., 102.

362. 8 Q. B. D., 275.

363. 14 Q. B. D., 588.

364. 62 L. T. n. s., 433.

365. 13 Q. B. D., 377.

366. Not yet reported, but likely to be reported in Cox, C. C., during 1892.

367. 13 C. S. C. (Just.) p. 9.

368. 62 L. M. S., 433.

369. 192 1 Q. B., 20.

370. L. R., 10 Q. B., 102.

371. 12 Q. B., D. 36.

372. 44 L. J. C. P., 309; 32 L. T. N. S., 825.

373. L. R., 9 Q. B., 440.

376. 62 L. T. N. S. 433.

377. 44 L. J. C. P., 309.

378. 14 Q. B. D., 588.

379. See Morley v. Greenhalge, 32, L. J. M. C., 93.

380. 14 Q. B. D., at p. 591.

381. 13 Q. B. D., 505.

383. 13 Q. B. D., at p. 525.

384. 13 Q. B. D., 377.

385. 44 L. J. C. P., 309.

387. L. R., 10 Q. B., 102.

388. The preamble, however, does speak of setting up betting offices.

389. Hansard, Vol. 129, p. 87.

390. See, too, per Hawkins, J., Reg. v. Preedie, referred to, ante p. 174.

391. As to these establishments, see ante p. 66, and ante the chapter on the Stock Exchange.

392. 60 L.J.M.C. 116: The case has before been dealt with under Lotteries.

394. 24 Q. B. D., 529; better reported 62 L. T. N. S., 436.

395. 13 M. & W., 838.

396. Hansard, Vol. 218, p. 595.

397. L. R., 12 Q. B. D., 128.

398. 20 Q. B. D., 182.

399. Reg. v. Newton, L.R., 1892, 1 Q. B., 648.

400. A question was raised in Turpin v. Jenks, as to what was to be done with the “persons found therein.” The answer seems to be that the power is given to enable the officers to ascertain by inquiry how far these persons were responsible for the gaming. See per Field, J., in Anderson v. Hume, 46, J.P. 825; besides, the Statute 17 & 18 Vict., c. 38, compels these persons to give their addresses. It would seem therefore that having given their addresses they should be released until the police are in a position to make a definite charge against them.