view raw text
c C b o on i t r li c s c c i i t t t i i , j 1 1 i , 1 j j i 1 ; , 1 5 1 r 3 1 1 0 j A e 1 , t g y 4 s k g 1. L. y y ie of trf !- CANADIAN TRACK BETTING LAWFUL. Court of Appeals Decides Method in Use at V Toronto Is Legal. Last spring Moylett and Bailey, bookmakers doing business at Woodbine Park, Toronto, were arrested a charge of keeping a common gaming house. They were convicted on trial before a police magistrate. Tlie case was appealed and last Friday,, No- j-.vember 15, the Court of Appeals, by unanimous .: vote of tlie judges, reversed this conviction. The ci result is that betting as conducted at Toronto is CI held to be lawful and the bookies can hereafter carry on their calling in Canada on tlie walk-about 7 system without fear of molestation. Of the do- cision, one of tlie Toronto newspapers says editori- 7 ally: "As Mr. Justice Meredith said in his judg- 7 ment in tlie Court of Appeals, quashing the formal i conviction in the stated case against two book- 7 makers who did business at Woodbine race course, 6 it is not easy for the lay or tlie professional mind to understand why it should not be lawful for them to do so in some particular place, under the con- s trol and regulation of a reputable club in an orderly manner, when it is lawful for them to do so in a manner less orderly and offensive, such as moving : :i about in a crowd to the discomfort and inconvenience of those about them. This absurdity might be removed by tlie authority of Parliament, which : provided many years ago that, in accordance with the legislation on the subject in all British coun- i tries, betting should be confined to race courses on . race days. The judgment of the Court of Appeals ; establishing the legality of the methods of betting 1 at Woodbine was unanimous. Tlie legality of the betting cannot be questioned, and, now that the particular method is also found equally proper, it is probable that the Ontario Jockey Club will not J be subject to further harrassing or annoyance, which was the only outcome of all tlie prosecutions that have been instituted. The right to speculate on race courses was long ago assured by Parliament ! to that jjortion of the public, which desired to. take advantage of it, but there has been a systematic effort in Toronto, and in Toronto alone, not to ; effect any change in the law, but to prevent the people from enjoying a privilege that the law admittedly gave them." The main points of the decision handed down are contained in the following utterances of the judges: "The defendants," says Chief Justice Moss, "were bookmakers and were two of those who did bet from day to day, through their assistants, with members of the general public who, like themselves, have paid for admission to the enclosure. "The defendants and their assistants did not nse any desk, stool, umbrella, tent or booth or erection of any kind to mark any place where bets were made. No part of the general enclosure was allotted to the defendants, or any other bookmakers; they were not restricted to the use of any portion of the general enclosure and no one had any rights or privileges therein. There was nothing in or on the ground to fix a place where the defendants could be found. "Viewed apart from tlie authorities by which the court is bound, it is obvious that there must be not only a house, oflice, room, or other place, but it must be one capable of being opened, kept or used for the purpose of betting. And there must also be some person who is entitled to exercise the right of opeuing, keeping, or using to the exclusion of the exercise of a similar right by others ; except with his permission. "Whatever doubts may have been entertained I upon these points before the decision of the House of Lords in the leading case of Powell vs. The Kempton Park Race Course Co.," affirming the Court t of Appeals, must be considered set at rest by the result of that case, and unless the findings in the " , stated case disclose a condition of affairs different t from those appearing in that case, the conviction 1 cannot be sustained. There are no facts found , 1 which would justify onr drawing an inference as s to the enclosure in question here, and the uses , made of it by the defendants contrary to that 1 which was held to be proper in the Kempton Park i case. "In this case, it is not and could not be con-. " strued that the defendants could be regarded as s the owners, occupiers, or keepers of the enclosure." The court holds that the fact that the hookies s conducted their betting within a radius of ten feet t did not constitute that a "place" within the mean-s ing of the act. Mr. Justice Meredith, speaking of the Saunders case, in which the keeper of a booth was found d guilty under the act, says: "The result caunot be very satisfactory to anyone; - and to those who are not learned in the law, r and indeed to those who are, or are supposed to be e. it may seem somewhat absurd that Saunders, in n . the lawful occupation of betting in the inore or-derly and less offensive to those to whom betting S in any mode is offensive manner should be ad-!- I- judged guilty of keeping a disorderly house and punished accordingly, whilst these defendants, who 10 carried on the same business upon the same race :c . course in a less orderly and inoffensive manner, should be adjudged not guilty of the same offense ;e and be discharged, that it is lawful for anyone to go about from place to place, among the public anywhere, making bets, unrestrained and uncontrolled, and yet unlawful to do in some particular place under the control and regulation of a repu-t table racing club, in a more orderly manner." Judge Osier says: "It appears to me that ihe case presents 110 serious difficulty except in under-. standing how our decision in Rex vs. Saunders, affirmed in the Supreme Court, could have been I though t to justify the conviction." 1 Air. Justice Osier, In quoting the Kempton Park case, says: "That waand an action by a shareholder of the defendant company whose position was similar to that of the Ontario. Jockey Club to restrain it from carrying on its business in a manner alleged by the plaintiff .to be illegal, that Is to say, the business of a common betting house." About the same points are being thrashed out in the courts of the District of Columbia, and it will be of interest to note whether our judges there will come to the same conclusions as their Canadian brethren, or not, . , , L-
