view raw text
THAT CANADIAN BETTING DECISION. Aa .i natter of Importance i" racing and in racing lurisprudenre tbe recent derision of the Supreme Court oi Ontario Is here given in fall, it was at ■rot widely printed thai tlie decision was a great blow to Canadian racing, but consideration of its full tc! shows thai it is simply nothing more than an annoyance. In essence the decision -is thai betting within a racetrack enclosure on raeea inn iivcr tin- track i legal, but not it carried on from a tied booth or box sneb as bookmakers ordinarily one. h is a tine example of legal hairsplitting Bnder wln.li tin- biyera and backers must amble about from place to place while betting; something at Hi tin Benning style. Tbe decision was not unanimous, line- mi! .i tic judgt - concurring. Chief .In-tii c Fitzpatrick handed down the following ■Id Ision in behalf ni the majoi Ity: This case comes before aa by way ••! appeal from ■ judg ni oi iite c.iii t ..! Vppeal for Ontario, which confirmed .1 conviction bj the Police Magistrate for the cii. ..i Toronto on ;i case reserved for the oaia j"ii of thai court. A statement of the facts will be found in 1 Ontario Law Reports, page 616. The offense with which the defendants were charged be fore the Police Magistrate was, as stated in the rescued ease, thai ol keeping a disorderly bowse, to Wit; a common betting bouse. Section 197 of the criminal code defines a common betting boose "aa a bouse, office or other place opened, kept or wed tor tin- purpose ni betting between persona resorting thereto and the owner, occupier or keeper thereof." Bectiou 198 enacts thai every one i- guilty of an Indictable offense and liable to one years imprison iicni who keeps a common betting liaise as herein i.i fore defined. !t has been 1. -111111 as | fa t by the Police Magis rate admitted by all the Judges below, and not seriouslj denied by counsel [or defendants at the :h-i in here, thai tin- belting booth toed by the defendants must lie held upon the authorities Pour ell s. Kempton Park. 1889, A. C. it::, and Brown vs. Patch, 1899, 1 Q. B. 892, in he a place within the Meaning ol section 197. The defendants wen- eon i. ted by the police magistrate on the ground that to use sii.i, 1 betting booth as was described in the witnesses roe the purpose ol betting between persons resorting thereto, ami the owner, occupier or keeper thereof, is an udlctable otTi-n.se under sections 1:17 and 198 of the criminal code*. on .1 reserred case tin decision wis upheld by the Court ol Appeal for Ontario, Meredith, .1.. and Harrow, -I.. dissenting. ll was no! denied that the defendants used the booths in question for the pur pose of belling with all comers, but it was put lor wii.l .. .1 defense to the charge that the booths or movable stands having been erected on the prera 1,- ,.| mii Incorporated racing association to be used ror the purpose of making bets during the ne lual progress ol a race meeting brought the defen dants within the proviso ol section 184. Section 201 declares ever] one guilt., of ■: indict able offense, who: a I Cscs or knowingly allows any par! of an premises under his control to i.e used lor the pur po • ..i recording or registering any i et or wager or selling anj pool, or In Keeps exhibits or employs in any part of any premises Bnder his control any device or apparatus for the purpose o| recording any bet. wager, etc.. or C Beconu s the custodian of depositor of, any money wag red, or id Records •■! registers any bet or wager. By sub-section 2 ••! section 204 ii Is expressly de-clarod that the provisions "l the section shall not extend to bits between Individuals or to l cts made on tin- racecourse of an Incorporated association luring the actual progress of a race meeting. These words were added aa an amendment when tin- criminal i".le was enacted ill 1892. Bets between individuals are not Illegal at cm ■ion law. ami the provisions i.r t.iis section do not extend to bets between individuals or to bets made on the ran- course of an Incorporated association during the course of .1 race meeting. I quite agree 11. ii the nimciit of isi2 was intended to reservi il,e rare courses ol Incorporated associations as places a lere bets might he recorded and registered, and any apparatus ■•!• structure used for the more convnioiilh recia-ding Buch bet or bets providing this was d during Ihe actual progress of a race iin. wen- exempted from the operation of that MCt ion. Km to use 1 place for the purpose "f recording or registering liets or wagers is something entirely different from using ■ place for the purpose of betting between persons resorting thereto and the owner or occupant thereof. Bets between individuals or bets made on the race course of an incorporated sssorlattBU dining the actual progress of a race meeting can be recorded in am place used for thai pnriH.se. but t.. keep a place whether within or without the grounds «.f a racing association for the purpose of betting. whether during the progress of a race BBC l ting or not. Is an offense under section 1!L. In inv opinion two distinct ami separate «atn-torv offenses are created by sections 197 and 2 4. ami that which may be invoked successfully as a Jefeuse. in one cuse cannot avail Ui tue oUjtr. +o keep a place tor making bets which may be recorded at that place or elsewhere and to keep a place for recording beta wherever made, ate distinct ami separate ads. each of which have been made of-tenses. and each of which are declared to subject tl Tenders to different penalties The exception created by subsection 2 of nee lion 204, with reaped to anything therein, does not apply I., those pteeea that arc kepi |..r Ihe purpose Of betting. 1 do not understand the rule of eoiistiu. lion to In- that all the sections ol th le dealing with nuisances ate to be read together to see how the.x can be made to harmonize any mole than the sections dealing with offenses against the person or against property. Distinct and separate acts are by these sections declared to be common nuisances. and the only question to Ik- considered is. do the fa.ts proved in evidence support the Charge as laid in each particular easel No useful purpose can be served by going over the ground already covered by the Chief Justice ol Ontario in the Court of Appeal. I quite agree with him that the intention of Parliament, which can only In- gathered from the language ii has used. was to exempt fr the operation of section 204, betting, on race courses controlled by Incorporated associations during ihe actual progress of a race, but not to sanction ihe existence of betting bouses on such tace courses at such limes ami under such circumstances. Section 197 makes no exception, at all times and under all circumstances betting houses are prohibited, and it is not for this court to introduce into this clause qualifying expressions which the Legislature has not chosen to put there. Ihe dissenting opinion lied by Judge Davis ill behalf of himself and Judge GIrouard aeteiblj said in part: "in my opinion the special privilege or per mission conceded by tin- subsection to carry on betting ill a special place and at a special time and with reference to special races, necessarily permit ted all acts ordinarily essential to the carrying out of the substantial purposes. "If the amendment made to tin- exempting sub-seilion. contemporaneously with the introduction of the new sections 197 and 198, penalising the common betting house did not operate to exempt betting made and recorded at SUCh house or place when lined within the limitations expressed in Ihe amendment then it appears to me to be quite meaningless because all betting made between indl- viduals bad already been exempted, as also all bets which were payable to the owner of the horse racing. The only effect of the amendment could be to extend the sanction of the clause to belling al the COMon betting house made between the keeper of the house and outside parties, when erected on tiie race grounds and which belting was confined within special limitations expressed in the amend incut . "Keeping a bouse or place for the purpose of betting between persons who resort thither to bet with the keeper of such house or place is an indict able offense within section 1P7 of the code, but it is not SUCh an offense when it is kept on the grounds of .an incorporated race association and the sole and exclusive purpose for which it is kept is for the special classes of lndting defined and limited by the sub section of 294."
