Re Frestone

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date07 May 1856
Date07 May 1856
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1131

IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

In Re Frestone

S C 25 L. J. M. C. 121, 2 Jur (N. S.) 525, 4 W R 367. Referred to, Langrish v. Archer, 1882, 10 Q B. D 47

in he freestone May 7, liS50 -A piisonei was convicted of playing in a certain open and public place, to wit, a carriage used on a railway, with an instrument of gaming-Held, that the conviction was bad, it not shewing that the carnage was being used for the conveyance of passengers on the line. [S. C 25 L. J. M. C 1_U , J Jiu- (N. S.) 525, 4 W R 5b7. Referred to, v Aiche,, 1S8-J, 10 Q B. D 47] A writ of habeas corpus had issued to bung up the prisoner, who had been convicted under the ~) Geo 4, c 83, s 4 The conviction stated that the prisoner, on the iJlst day of April, A D. 185b, did unlawfully play in a certain open and public place, to wit, in a third-class carnage used on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, with an instrument of gaming, to wit, three caids, at a pretended game of chance, called " odd man/' Metca!fe now moved that the prisoner should be discharged out or custody The words of the statute are, [94] "every peison playing or betting in any street, road, highway, or other open 01 public place, at or with any table or instrument of gaming " First a railway carriage is not an open and public place To constitute the ottence the place must be public, .is a street rs public, that is, open to all the world [Pollock, C B The line 1-= a public highway.( i)~\ Secondly cards aie not a "table or instrument of gaming." The statute meant to apply to thimblerig or roulette tables, or the like. No one appeared iu support of the conviction. polliajk, C B. We aie all of opinion that this conviction cannot be supported, and that the prisoner is entitled to hi discharge Without saying whether cards are an instrument of gaming within the meaning ot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Toh Teong Seng v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • April 13, 1995
    ...[42]. Bethune v Hefferman [1986] VR 417 (refd) Brannan v Peek [1948] 1 KB 68; [1947] 2 All ER 572 (refd) Freestone, Re (1856) 1 H & N 93; 156 ER 1131 (refd) Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a; 76 ER 637 (folld) Knox v Anderton (1983) 76 Cr App R 156 (refd) Langrish v Archer (1882) 10 QBD 44 (......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT