In the Irish Courts
| Published date | 01 January 1950 |
| Date | 01 January 1950 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201835001400106 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In the Irish Courts
HIGH
COURT
IN
EIRE
WHAT
IS
A
BOOKMAKER?
A.·G. v. Ring
THE defendant in R. v. Ring (1949,
I.R.
167) appeared
in
the
District Court upon asummons charging him
with acontravention of s. 2 of
the
Betting Act, 1931, which
makes
it
an
offence for
any
person to
carryon
business or
act
as a bookmaker, unless he holds a licence. The facts
proved or admitted were
that
the
defendant (who
had
no
licence) accepted bets on slips of paper which were
then
sent on
to
a licensed bookmaker, who accepted
them
and
who paid
the
betting
tax
upon them. The defendant's
interest in
the
matter
was limited to
the
receipt from
the
bookmaker of
the
sum of one shilling in
the
pound
on all
bets
thus
transmitted, so
that
it
was immaterial
to
him
whether
the
horse lost or won. Upon these facts,
it
is
obvious
that
the
defendant was
nota
bookmaker since
he took no risk.
But
the
prosecution relied on
the
terms
of s. 27
(2)
of
the
Act, which provides
that
aperson is to
be deemed to be acting himself as a bookmaker
if
he invites
or solicits bets, or announces
the
terms or odds, or "takes,
makes or negotiates"
any
bet, either on his own behalf or
on behalf of a licensed bookmaker. The District Justice
rejected this contention on
the
ground
that
the
defendant
had
been charged under s. 2
and
not
under s. 27, which
latter
section (he held) created
the
offence of which
the
defendant might be said to be guilty.
Upon a case being
stated
for
the
opinion of
the
High
Court, however,
it
was held
that
s. 27 does
not
create
an
offence,
but
merely extends
the
list of those persons who
may
be said to contravene s. 2. The question
to
be decided
in such a case is, therefore, whether
the
defendant comes
89
To continue reading
Request your trial