Divisional Court Cases
| Published date | 01 January 1940 |
| Date | 01 January 1940 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834000400104 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court Cases |
Divisional Court Cases
POOL
BETTING
Stovell v. Jameson
IF
the contentions of the respondent in the above case had
been correct there could have been an amazing extension
of the betting pools. By section 3of the Betting and Lotteries
Act, 1934,
"(I)
No
pari-mutuel
or pool
betting
business shall be carried
on
except-
" (a) on an
approved
race-course
....
" (b) on a licensed track being a dog race-course
....
"(2)
Save as is
permitted
by
the
preceding sub-section, no
person
shall use any premises
whether
situate on a track or
not
or
cause or knowingly
permit
any
such
premises to be used as a place
where persons resorting
thereto
may effect
pari-mutuel
or pool
betting
transactions."
In
September, 1938, the respondent Jameson, a
tobacconist
and
confectioner of Croydon, Surrey, was
appointed collector for Strang's Pools, which were being
run
by a
Mr.
Strang of Edinburgh. On various dates in
October, 1938, persons came to Jameson's shop to obtain
coupons for Strang's Pools.
On
other dates in October
Jameson received at his shop completed coupons and money
owing on the previous week's coupons. Jameson transmitted
the coupons to
Edinburgh
and also the money, having first
deducted therefrom the commission due to him from Strang
on
the
various transactions. Strang had the right to reject
any entries he wished.
Upon
these facts the Croydon police charged Jameson
with breaches of section 3(2) of the Betting and Lotteries
4S
To continue reading
Request your trial