Offences and Case Law
| Author | A Borough |
| Published date | 01 April 1953 |
| Date | 01 April 1953 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X5302600212 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
14U
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
first and foremost, their retention of the confidence and friendship of
the general population. There is obviously a great deal still to be
learned about colonial police techniques in such circumstances; it is
most important that it should be properly learned
and
mastered,
because, if the cold war continues, and action against 'colonial im-
perialism' remains part of the Soviet directive, this type of situation
may have to be faced in other places."
Offences and Case Law
By
A
BOROUGH
CHIEF
ClERK
XII.-POOL
BETTING
Betting and LotteriesAct, 1934, Section 3
(I)
No
...
pool betting shall be carried on on any track except (a)
on an approved horse racecourse
...
(h) on a licensed track
being a dog racecourse
...
(2) Save as is permitted by the preceding subsection, no person
shall use any premises . . . as a place where persons resorting
thereto may effect
...
pool betting transactions.
In the case of Stove!! v. Jameson (1940),1 K.B. 92, a confectioner
and tobacconist was summoned at Croydon for using his shop as a place
where persons might effect pool betting transactions, contrary to
was that persons went to the shop to take part in football pools. They
obtained coupons there with which to enter,
and
when these were
completed they were returned to the shopkeeper, who sent them to the
pool promoters in Edinburgh. With the coupons the shopkeeper
received the stake money for the previous week's forecast, and a police
inspector gave evidence that when he offered 2s. with the first coupon
he obtained, he was told to pay the following week, and he did in fact
pay his losses when he handed in the next week's coupon.
For
the defence it was said that the prosecution had to establish
that by handing acoupon to a shopkeeper who might pass it to a pools
promoter, a man was effecting a pool betting transaction.
It
was sub-
mitted that it was nothing of the sort, for the rules of the pools made it
quite clear that the transaction did not become effective until the coupon
reached the promoters. If, for example, the mails were destroyed in a
train accident and a coupon did not reach the promoters, it did not
become effective as a betting transaction.
The magistrates accepted the contention of the defence and in
dismissing the summons agreed to state a case for the consideration of
the Divisional Court, where, in the course of the argument, there was an
To continue reading
Request your trial