insurance. The essence of a contract of insurance is that there shall be an insurable interest-something which the person insuring is afraid of losing. In the case of a bet you make a bet in the hope of winning, not losing something which you have already got; I do not know if that makes the position clear.

134. Thank you. I am not quite clear with regard to the meaning of the word "place at a racecourse. Do I understand that if a bookmaker is on a racecourse and he stands in one position and takes bets, by thus standing in one position he constitutes that position

a

place" within the meaning of the Act, or was that altered by the Kempton Park decision? I think under the existing law, which is really the Kempton Park decision, as interpreted in the Courts, the bookmaker who merely stands in the same position throughout a race meeting is not doing anything, or is not doing sufficient to bring himself within the arm of the law.

Chairman.] But if he puts up an umbrella or a box he is.

Mr. David Grenfell.

135. Does the same distinction apply to a football enclosure or a hall where boxing is caried on? How does the word "place" apply to betting during the progress of a football match or a boxing match? Betting is the same wherever it is carried on so far as the definition is concerned. Betting means the same thing.

136. I meant the word " 'place "?—I beg your pardon. The definition of the word place" is exactly the same, or rather the legal meaning of the word "place" in the Act of 1853 has the same significance in connection with football grounds or any other places.

137. Assume a boxing hall, the Albert Hall or Olympia; would betting be legally permitted inside such a hall? Would not that be considered a "place" in itself? You see the difficulty of answering a question like that is that every particular transaction depends so entirely on its own facts. I canot say aye or no to your question without committing myself to something which really might go further than the law goes. take the general principle that we have been discussing as to the application of the Betting Act of 1853, it is obvious that if a bookmaker were to attempt to carry on business in one of those places you have indicated in a manner prohibited by

If you

[Continued.

the Act, he would be committing an offence. If he is receiving bets or deposits when there is a boxing match going on and he fixes himself there in such a way as to come within the Act, he is committing an offence, but it must depend so much on the particular facts that I find it very difficult to answer that question. I am not aware of any conviction of a bookmaker in those circumstances. There may be convictions, but I do not happen to be aware of any of a bookmaker carrying on business at a boxing contest.

Chairman.

138. Have there been cases of prosecutions of bookmakers carrying on business at football matches?-Yes, there have been convictions under that. With regard to points of that kind on the application of the Act, I do not pretend to have spe cial knowledge, and I think the Committee will be in a position to learn from other witnesses what has been the practical application.

Chairman]: The question Mr. Grenfell is putting, as I understand is if a bookmaker attends a boxing competition and bets, what would the law be?

139. Yes, that is the question.-I only answer this question so far by suggesting that I do not see any reason why, if he carried it on in a particular way, it should not be possible to proceed against him for contravention of the Act.

140. Does it make any difference to the penalty as to whether the bet is transacted inside a building or in the open air? -I think that the principles which have been applied in relation to clubs really answer that. In connection with betting in clubs it has been held that if there is any particular part of the premises which has been so exclusively devoted to betting that there is, as it were, an appropriatior of that place to the purpose of the busi ness of betting it is an offence.

141. Any racecourse is outside the definition of the term "place," is it not? -The term "public place"? There are two distinct points, and in order to make it clear I must answer your question fully. Under the Act of 1853, broadly speaking, betting carried on by a bookmaker on a racecourse in the ordinary way is not contrary to the Act, that is the betting carried on in the ordinary way by the bookmaker that you see racecourse nowadays. The Street Betting Act of 1906 in terms does not itself apply to racecourses; there is a provision in the Act to that effect.

on a

142. Has there been any decision taken with reference to betting inside a building? There are a number of decisions with regard to that.

143. I mean, where a contest of some nature is being carried on, and during the progress of the contest? You are again speaking of boxing?

144. Yes, take, for example, Olympia.-I have answered that by saying I am not aware of any, but I do not want you to draw any inference from that, because there are other witnesses who will speak to it.

Chairman.

145. Would not the proprietors of the boxing competition, if they allowed it to go on, be hit under the Betting Act of 1853? They would. It is the knowledge and consent of the persons in control of the premises that has got to be considered in connection with that question.

Mr. David Grenfell.

146. Does the Act of 1853 make direct reference to professional bookmakers on the racecourses?-I do not think it does in terms. It was an Act directed primarily against keeping houses, as the preamble itself shows and the terms of the Act show.

147. Would it be right to say that the Act is directed against betting, but that bookmakers have found it possible to evade the law?-No, I do not think that that would be a proper conclusion to draw. The Act was laid down carefully and in deliberate terms to stop a certain kind of betting, and so far as I am aware it has stopped that kind of betting busi

ness.

Chairman.

148. It ought to be borne in mind that betting is not illegal, but only certain kinds of betting under certain conditions have been made illegal; that is the real position? That is really so.

Mr. David Grenfell.] I simply asked whether because a bookmaker who adopts a fixed position for two hours or four hours or six hours on any one day commits an illegality by so doing, but the same bookmaker moving about within a space of or six hours on any one day commits no illegal act.

Chairman.] That is so, on a racecourse, but it would not be so on a street.

Mr. David Grenfell.] No, I understand that.

Witness.] I think as regards racecourses I am not prepared to say that under the

[Continued.

law as it now stands it is impossible to prosecute under the Act of 1853 a bookmaker who bets or does betting business on the racecourse.

Mr. Lyle-Samuel.

149. Do you say it might be possible to prosecute? I say I am not prepared to say it is not impossible. Clearly I am speaking now of my own individual views as a lawyer, which are simply the conclusions I have formed myself from these decided cases, and so far as I can see from those cases it is still possible that a bookmaker may be conducting business on a racecourse in such a way as to bring himself within the terms of the Act, as witness the case cited by the Chairman of the man with the umbrella or the box.

Mr. David Grenfell.

150. My question was, can a bookmaker practise his trade or profession by constantly moving about within a very limited area without committing an illegality? Yes, I think so..

151. Within 20 square yards? Well, you must not tie me down to 20 square yards.

Mr. Lyle-Samuel.

152. Did I understand you to say there is any more significance in a bookmaker erecting an umbrella than like any other person that he does not care to be soaked with rain or burnt by the sun? Do you mean to say that our law is in such a position that that is an offence? I am afraid the law is rather a peculiar element in our constitution. The position really so much depends on the facts of every case. I can only say that it has been decided that a bookmaker who has established himself in that way on a racecourse by putting up an umbrella and standing on a box and so fixing himself in a place for the purpose of a particular race meeting has been convicted.

153. Is it not the fact that that happens at every race meeting?-Well, I do not know; I am not in the habit of attending every race meeting.

154. Well, would you not assume that it does happen at practically every race meeting? What I was going to ask you was, would your instructions from the Home Office to the Police ?-I am afraid that does fall outside the scope of my evidence. There are witnesses from the Home Office who will deal with that.

155. I just want to ask you a word about the clubs. Did I understand that in order that a club should commit an

offence there must be some part of the club exclusively devoted to betting? That is one of the class of cases which does bring the people in control of the club within the scope of the law. I think it is so important an element in the offence that probably it would be difficult to convict under any other circumstances. The main point is that the persons in control of the club, the Committee or Managers of the Club, must be really conducting something, or something must be conducted with their knowledge, assent and approval, which is a betting business contrary to the Act and, of course, if they did so, supposing they regularly did it first in one room and then in another, I am not prepared to say that that would not be an offence within the Act, if it is a regular business done with their knowledge and consent.

156. You said that members of the club could bet amongst themselves as much as they wished. Suppose a member of a social club acted as an agent for a credit bookmaker, would the Committee of the Club be guilty of an offence if they knew it and did not stop it? Do you mean a member in the club acting as agent for somebody outside who was a professional bookmaker?

157. Yes. I do not mean taking money; I mean credit bookmaking-booking the bets as the agent of the credit bookmaking firm?-I do not think any offence would be committed there.

158. Suppose a servant of a club was acting as agent for a credit bookmaker to the knowledge of the Committee, and as they thought for the convenience of the members, would the Committee be liable? Are they guilty of an offence?— Acting as an agent for a credit bookmaker?

159. Yes, for the convenience of members who wished to bet?-Doing only credit business, you mean-no money passing?

[Continued.

Mr. Lyle-Samuel.

162. Nor would the servant of the club who was so acting be liable?-That is so, so far as my opinion goes.

Mr. William Graham.

163. Arising out of what Mr. Foot asked you regarding the law as between England and Scotland, I think it is correct to say that the section you quoted from the Burgh Police Act, 1892, is really of the nature of local bye-law?—I think it is. It fulfils very much the same function as our provisions empowering people to make bye-laws.

164. Yes. In fact the whole Statute, of course, was simply a kind of local application of the existing general law? Yes.

165. Conferring local powers, and so on? -Yes, powers for the good government of the locality-in substance.

166. Then within recent times do you know of any separate Statute dealing with betting applying to Scotland?_ Exclusively to Scotland?

167. Yes? There may be one, but I am afraid I do not know it.

Sir George Hamilton]: The Gaming Machines Act.

Mr. William Graham]: Is that exclusive to Scotland?

Sir George Hamilton]: Yes.

Mr. William Graham.

168. Generally speaking, the law is the same in both countries?-Yes, I think, generally speaking, that is correct.

169. The other point I wish to put to you turns on a paragraph in page 4 of your memorandum. You refer to a contract enforceable at law which arises where there is a fresh promise to pay betting losses or winnings based on new consideration?—Yes.

170. Can you say from the legal side whether there has been any great growth of contract of that kind within recent times? I mean by that, do the cases in the Courts indicate great growth?

Chairman.

171. I would suggest, before you answer that, that the tendency of the Law Courts is against extending that principle? Yes, I should think it was. There have been cases, but I am not aware of any very recent cases. I think that there have been two or three cases within the last 15 years, but I am not aware of any growth of such cases.

Mr. William Graham.

172. What I have in mind is rather this does your experience of the legal side encourage the view that there has been growth of contract based on betting transactions I mean a contract, of course, of a business character other than a betting transaction?-Are you speaking of a contract based on fresh consideration?

173. Yes? The kind of case that I am thinking of with regard to fresh consideration is the kind of case where the settlement of a dispute between a betting man and a bookmaker has been referred to the Jockey Club,, and in consideration of a certain new promise to settle the bet, for

intance, to settle it subject to certain deductions, or anything of that sort, it has been held that a new contract has been created, which is enforceable and not unenforceable as the original bet was.

174. But that is still within the sphere of betting itself? Oh yes.

175. I think we have not passed to any business transaction of another kind?-Oh no; I follow. We have not considered that.

176. Have you any evidence to show that what we might call legitimate business is based to any appreciable extent on a betting foundation?—Are you referring to gambling in differences and that sort of thing on the Stock Exchange?

177. No, I mean the ordinary business contract; is the growth of that based upon betting transactions gain or loss? -I am afraid I cannot assist you by my answer to that, apart from the reference which I have just inade to the cases of speculation which have frequently come under the consideration of the Courts in the past with reference to the question whether or not it was a gaming or wagering transaction as distinct from ordinary contract enforceable at law.

Mr. Forestier-Walker.

an

[Continued.

it may assist you to see what is in my mind. Mr. Justice McCardie said in the case of Henshall v. Porter, reported in 30 Times Law Reports at page 499, "Mr. Palmer "-that is Counsel for the Defendant "discussed with acuteness and force the interpretation of the 1922 Act in relation to the policy of the Legislature with respect to betting as revealed in past and existing legislation; I think that it might be more correct to refer to the variation of policy. For several centuries the course of legislation has been remarkable. The confusion and inconsistency at the present day are striking. Betting in certain specific methods or places is criminally punishable. Yet, speaking broadly, betting in itself is perfectly legal. At common law bets or wagers were neither illegal nor void, except in special cases involving, for example, public morality. Since the Act of 1845 they have been unenforceable. The late Mr. Justice Lush said in Haigh v. Sheffield Town Council that the Act of 1854

ordinary betting was treated as a thing of neutral character not to be encouraged; but, on the other hand, not to be absolutely forbidden-it left an ordinary bet a mere debt of honour--depriving it of all legal obligation, but not making it illegal.' I may point out that a valid partnership may exist in a betting business," and then he quotes a case upon which that proposition is based-" and that a bookmaker must pay income-tax on his profits." That is the sense in which I was using the word inconsistent."

Mr. Cecil Wilson.

179. Will you give us the definition of "street" in the Act of 1906, and also as applied to Scotland?-"Street" means "any highway and any public bridge, road lane, footway, square, court, alley, 'or passage," and the words public place "—which, I take it, you include in your question-mean under that Act any public park, garden, or seabeach and any unenclosed ground to which the public for the time being have unrestricted access," and it also means "enclosed places to which the public have a restricted right of access subject to this condition "that there is conspicuously exhibited by the owners or persons having the control of the place a notice prohibiting betting therein."

or

180. Have not you left out certain words: "whether a thoroughfare not"? I think that is in the Act, and clearly it must be. That, of course, is

inferred from the particular words that follow. Obviously it does not matter whether it is a thoroughfare or not.

181. The words "whether a thoroughfare or not" actually occur in the Act? -Yes, I think they are in the Act. Does that answer your question?

182. Well, I really wanted the words of the Act. It is Section 1, Sub-section 4: "For the purpose of this Section the word 'street' shall include any highway and any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not; and the words 'public place' shall include any public park, garden, or seabeach, and any unenclosed ground to which the public for the time being have unrestricted access, and shall also include every enclosed place (not being a public park or garden) to which the public have a stricted right of access, whether on payment or otherwise, if at or near every public entrance there is conspicuously exhibited by the owners or persons having the control of the place a notice prohibiting betting therein."

re

Scotland

183. And in Scotland ?-In passage" includes " common close or common stair or passage leading thereto."

184. Take the case of a court in which there are four or five houses; if the inhabitants of those houses are betting amongst themselves openly in the court that is an offence?-I imagine, in a case such as that, it would be. As you state it, I see no reason why it should not come within the definition of "street or public place."

185. If, instead of betting in the court they are betting in one of the houses regularly-?-Your question is, would that be an offence?-No, not necessarily. Credit betting in the house, amongst the members of the household, would not be an offence.

Sir Alfred Butt.] I think I understood you to say in your evidence that all cash betting was illegal. Is that true where the money passes first of all before the race takes place?

[Continued.

is betting, or doing betting business by way of deposit, or doing such business with persons resorting to a "place." Chairman.

So.

188. It is legal, I suggest, because it is not prohibited by the 1853 Act?—That is It does not come within the interpretation of the 1853 Act as laid down in the case to which I referred, Powell v. The Kempton Park Racecourse Company. There is no fixed place at which it has been carried on, and therefore it does not come within the terms of the Act.

189. Could you tell me, if you have a very large football match such as took place at Wembley Park a fortnight ago, whether it would be legal to bet for cash there? Is your question directed to the Act that I cited recently?

190. What I am trying to find out is what constitutes a legal ready-money bet, and what constitutes an illegal ready-money bet. We all know that it is tolerated on every racecourse, but I want to take it a little further; is it allowed on every football ground, and, if not, why not? I want to try and find out what is the difference between being allowed to bet for ready money on a racecourse and not being allowed to bet for ready money on a football ground?-I see no reason why exactly the same principle should not be applied to a bookmaker who goes to a football ground as is applied to a bookmaker who goes to a racecourse; the same principles must be applied.

191. Could I carry it a step farther? Does not the same principle apply to a gigantic boxing match within a large building?-No doubt an offence can be committed by the persons in control of the boxing show--those who are running the boxing contest. If they permit betting to be carried on in the manner contemplated by the Act of 1853 an offence is committed.

192. I was not really asking whether an offence was committed, but whether it would be tolerated-?-I do not quite know what you mean by "tolerated". I am really in some difficulty as to the inference to be drawn. Do you mean, is it an offence against the law, or is it winked at by those who administer the law?

193. I was really asking whether it was an offence against the law? I have endeavoured to indicate throughout that so much depends on the facts of each case on the principles which I have tried to