THE LAWS ON BETTING.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IX, Issue 447, 16 February 1899, Page 15

THE LAWS ON BETTING.

According to the London Sportsman of December 30, troublous times are in store for the B.P. bookmaker in the Old Country, and his very existence may be said to be threatened, although as long as Englishman exist betting will take place, and means be found to evade the most stringent enactments. The latest uneasiness is caused by the bye law which was recently passed by the London County Council, and which is considered to exceed the powers possessed by that body. If allowed to remain unchallenged, the new regulation would make it a criminal offence to bet in the street, even if, in fact, no obstruction whatever were caused, and S.P. bookmakers would be harassed beyond description, and could be summoned for every occasion on which they were found making bets, or even agreeing'to wager for themselves or any other person. Under the 23rd section of the Metropolitan Streets Act, it was enacted that three or more persons assembling in the public street for the purpose of betting should be liable to a penalty. It was the obstruction which was aimed against, betting itself never having been declared by Parliament to be illegal. Thus matters stood till the middle of last summer, when, among the set of bye-laws which were adopted, and which ■duly came into force with the advent of Novem ber, the London County Council passed the following clause : — “No person shall frequent and use any street or other public place, on behalf either of himself or of any other person, for the purpose of bookm iking, or betting, or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager with any person, or paying, or receiving, or settling bets.” The maximum penalty was fixed at £5.

Under the above clause four summonses were taken out by Chief-Inspector Shannon, and duly heard by Mr Curtis Bennett at the Marylebone Police Court on December 16 against William Adams, of 8, New Quebec Street, Marylebone, for unlawfully using a certain place, viz , Berkeley Mews, for the purpose of betting, in contravention of the new bye-law of the L.C.C. Mr Horace Avory was entrusted with the defence, and, without raising the point whether the spot in question was a place within the meaning of the said clause, .he ably argued that the new byelaw was ultra vires, inasmuch as it was repugnant to the existing law on the same subject. He contended, further, that the new bye-law clearly went beyond the terms of the subject matter of the Act of Parliament under which it was created, and endeavored to make a criminal offence of conduct which, by statute, was not to be regarded as such. In support of his contention Mr Avory cited several cases, including the well-known one of - “ Strickland v. Hayes,” in which it was held by Lord Justice Lindley that it was never intended that power should be given to make bye-laws which would create a new criminal offence, and that such bye-laws, going too far, must be pronounced invalid, although, a certain amplification of the statute was, of course, requisite in their formation. The position of affairs in the present case was, Mr Avory argued, “ on all fours,” but Mr Curtis Bennett, though he admitted that the new bye-law covered ground whichw as not covered by the Metropolitan Street Act, considered it was not repugnant to that. Act, and on the testimony tendered by the police, mulcted the defendant in the full penalty of £5 in each case, with 28s costs, but agreed to state a case for the higher court, other summonses for similar offences being adjourned sine die. It was evident that matters could not be allowed to rest here, and the starting-price bookmakers, with their position in jeopardy, have resolved to make Mr Adams’ case a test one, and not only to appeal, but, if necessary, to carry the matter to the House of Lords. Accordingly, on December 28. an important meeting of S.P. bookmakers, great and small, for all parts of the metropolis, was held at the Cock, and Lion, Wigmore Street, Manchester Square, W., Mr Arthur Haynes, of Upper Holloway, presiding. On his

proposition, seconded by Mr J. Nye, the following resolution was carried : —

“ That the gentlemen present at this meeting pledge themselves to support the cause of Mr W. Adams in his appeal against the decision of Mr Curtis Bennett, whereby he was fined £22 8s on four summonses taken out at the instance of the London County Council, and to find the funds to carry the case through to the bitter end.” This was passed nem. con., and it was also agreed by the meeting, which numbered about one hundred, that all expenses whatsoever incurred by Mr Adams should come out of the general fund to be raised. In order to better carry through the defence an Association was formed, and a subscription list was opened in the room, when over £lOO was collected.