The subject of English gambling may be illustrated by a series of events
which happened at Brighton in 1817, when an inquiry respecting the
gaming carried on at the libraries led to many important disclosures.
It appears that a warrant was granted on the oath of a Mr William
Clarke, against William Wright and James Ford, charged with feloniously
stealing L100. But the prosecutor did not appear in court to prove the
charge. It was quite evident, therefore, that the law had been abused
in the transaction, and the magistrate, Sergeant Runnington, directed
warrants to be issued for the immediate appearance of the prosecutor
and Timothy O'Mara, as an evidence; but they absconded, and the learned
Sergeant discharged the prisoners.
The matter then took a different turn. The same William Wright, before
charged with 'stealing' the L100, was now examined as a witness to
give evidence upon an examination against Charles Walker, of the Marine
Library, for keeping an unlawful Gaming House.
This witness stated that he was engaged, about five weeks before, to act
as _punter_ or player (that is, in this case, a sham player or decoy) to
a table called _Noir, rouge, tout le deux_ (evidently a name invented
to evade the statute, if possible), by William Clarke, the prosecutor,
before-mentioned; that the table was first carried to the back room of
Donaldson's Library, where it continued for three or four days, when
Donaldson discharged it from his premises.
He said he soon got into the confidence of Clarke, who put him up to the
secrets of playing. The firm consisted of O'Mara, Pollett, Morley, and
Clarke. There was not much playing at Donaldson's. Afterwards the table
was removed into Broad Street, but the landlady quickly sent it away. It
was then carried to a room over Walker's Library, where a rent was
paid of twelve guineas per week, showing plainly the profits of the
speculation.
Several gentlemen used to frequent the table, among whom was one who
lost L125.
Clarke asked the witness if he thought the person who lost his money was
rich? And being answered in the affirmative, it was proposed that he,
William Wright, should invite the gentleman to dinner, to let him have
what wine he liked, and to spare no expense to get him drunk.
The gentleman was induced to play again, and endeavour to recover his
money. As he had nothing but large bills, to a considerable amount, he
was prevailed on to go to London, in company with the witness, who
was to take care and bring him back. One of the firm, Pollett, wrote a
letter of recommendation to a Mr Young, to get the bills discounted at
his broker's. They returned to Brighton, and the witness apprized the
firm of his arrival. They wanted him to come that evening, but the
witness _TOLD THE GENTLEMAN OF HIS SUSPICIONS_--that during their
absence a _FALSE TABLE_ had been substituted.
The witness, however, returned to his employers that evening, when the
firm advanced him L100, and Ford, another punter of the sort, L100, to
back with the gentleman as a blind--so that when the signal was given to
put upon black or red, they were to put their stakes--by which means the
gentleman would follow; and they calculated upon fleecing him of five
or six thousand pounds in the course of an hour. According to his own
account, the witness told the gentleman of this trick; and the following
morning the latter went with him, to know if this nefarious dealing has
been truly represented.
On entering the library they met Walker, who wished them better success,
but trembled visibly. At the door leading into the room porters were
stationed; and, as soon as they entered, Walker ordered it to be bolted,
for the sake of privacy; but as soon as the gentleman ascended the dark
staircase, he became alarmed at the appearance of men in the room, and
returned to the porter, and, by a timely excuse, was allowed to pass.
At this table Clarke generally dealt, and O'Mara played. It was for
not restoring the L100 to the firm that the charge of felony was laid
against the witness--after the escape of the gentleman; but an offer of
L100 was made to him, after his imprisonment, if he would not give his
evidence of the above facts and transactions.
The evidence of the other witness, Ford, confirmed all the material
facts of the former, and the gentleman himself, the intended victim,
substantiated the evidence of Wright--as to putting him in possession of
their nefarious designs.
When the gentleman found that he had been cheated of the L125, he went
to Walker to demand back his money. Walker, in the utmost confusion,
went into the room, and returned with a proposal to allow L100. This
he declined to take, and immediately laid the information before Mr
Sergeant Runnington.
The learned Sergeant forcibly recapitulated the evidence, and declared
that in the whole course of his professional duties he had never heard
such a disclosure of profligacy and villainy, combined with every
species of wickedness. In a strain of pointed animadversion he declared
it to be an imperative duty,--however much his private feelings might
be wounded in seeing a reputable tradesman of the town convicted of such
nefarious pursuits,--to order warrants to be issued against all parties
concerned as rogues and vagrants.
At the next hearing of the case the court was crowded to excess; and the
mass of evidence deposed before the magistrates threw such a light on
the system of gambling, that they summarily put a stop to the Cobourg
and Loo tables at the various public establishments.
At the first examination, the 'gentleman' before mentioned, a Mr
Mackenzie, said he had played _Rouge et Noir_ at Walker's, and had lost
L125. He saw O'Mara there, but he appeared as a player, not a banker;
the only reason for considering him as one of the proprietors of the
table, arose from the information of the witnesses Wright and Ford.
On this evidence, Mr Sergeant Runnington called on O'Mara and Walker for
their defence, observing that, according to the statements before him,
there appeared sufficient ground for considering O'Mara as a rogue and
vagabond; and for subjecting Mr Walker to penalties for keeping a
house or room wherein he permitted unlawful games to be played. O'Mara
affirmed that the whole testimony of Wright and Ford with respect to
him was false; that he had been nine years a resident housekeeper in
Brighton, and was known by, and had rendered essential services to, many
respectable individuals who lived in the town, and to many noble
persons who were occasional visitors. He seemed deeply penetrated by the
intimation that he could be whipped, or otherwise treated as a vagabond;
and said, that if time were allowed him to collect evidence, and obtain
legal assistance, he could disprove the charge, or at least invalidate
the evidence of the two accusers.
In consequence of these representations, the case was adjourned to
another day, when, so much was the expectation excited by the rumour of
the affair, that at the opening of the court the hall was crowded almost
to suffocation, and all the avenues were completely beset.
O'Mara appeared, with his counsel, the celebrated Mr Adolphus--the
Ballantyne of his day--of Old Bailey renown and forensic prowess.
Mr Sergeant Runnington very obligingly stated to Mr Adolphus the
previous proceeding, directed the depositions to be laid before him,
and allowed him time to peruse them. Mr Adolphus having gone through the
document, requested that the witnesses might be brought into court, that
he might cross-question them separately; which being ordered, Wright was
first put forward--the man who had received the L100, enlightened the
Mr Mackenzie, and who was charged with feloniously stealing the above
amount.
After the usual questions, very immaterial in the present case, but
answered, the witness went on to say that, O'Mara called at his lodgings
and said, if he (Wright) could not persuade Mr Mackenzie to come from
London, he was not to leave him, but write to him (O'Mara), and he would
go to town, and win all his money. He had, on a former occasion,
told the witness, that he could win all Mackenzie's money at child's
play--that he could toss up and win ninety times out of one hundred; he
had told both him and Ford, that if they met with any gentleman who did
not like the game of _Rouge et Noir_, and would bring them to his house,
he was always provided with cards, dice, and backgammon tables, to win
their money from them.
The learned counsel then cross-questioned the witness as to various
matters, in the usual way, but tending, of course, to damage him by
the answers which the questions necessitated--a horrible, but, perhaps,
necessary ordeal perpetuated in our law-procedure. In these answers
there was something like prevarication; so that the magistrate, Mr
Sergeant Runnington, asked the witness at the close of the examination,
whether he had any previous acquaintance with the gentlemen who had
engaged him at half-a-crown a game, and then so candily communicated to
him all their schemes? He said, none whatever. 'But,' said the Sergeant,
'you were in the daily habit of playing at this public table for the
purpose of deceiving the persons who might come there?' The witness
answered--'I was.'
The witness Ford fared no better in the cross-examination, and Mr
Sergeant Runnington, at its close, asked him the same question that
he had addressed to Wright, respecting his playing at the table, and
received the same answer.
Mr Mackenzie did not appear, and there was no further evidence. Mr
Adolphus said that if he were called upon to make any defence for his
client upon a charge so supported, he was ready to do it; but, as he
must make many observations, not only on the facts, but on the _LAW_, he
was anxious if possible to avoid doing so, as he did not wish to say
too much about the law respecting gaming before so large and mixed an
audience.(72)
(72) See Chapter XI. for the views of Mr Adolphus here alluded to.
Two witnesses were called, who gave evidence which was damaging to the
character of Ford, stating that he told them he was in a conspiracy
against O'Mara and some other moneyed men, from whom they should get
three or four hundred pounds, and if witness would conceal from O'Mara
his (Ford's) real name, he should have his share of the money, and might
go with him and Wright to Brussels.
After hearing these witnesses, Mr Sergeant Runnington, without calling
on Mr Adolphus for any further defence of his client, pronounced the
judgment of the Bench.
He reviewed the transaction from its commencement, and stated the
impression, to the disadvantage of O'Mara, which the tale originally
told by the two witnesses was calculated to make. But, on hearing the
cross-examination of those witnesses, and seeing no evidence against
the defendant but from sources so impure and corrupt--recollecting the
severe penalties of the Vagrant Acts, and sitting there not merely as a
judge, but also exercising the functions of a jury, he could not bring
himself to convict on such evidence. The witnesses, impure as they were,
were _NOT SUPPORTED BY MR MACKENZIE IN ANY PARTICULAR_, except the
fact of his losing money, at a time when O'Mara did not appear as a
proprietor of the table, but as a player like himself. O'Mara must
therefore be discharged; but the two witnesses would not be so
fortunate. From their own mouths it appeared that they had been using
subtle craft to deceive and impose upon his Majesty's subjects, by
playing or betting at unlawful games, and had no legal or visible means
of gaining a livelihood; the court, therefore, adjudged them to be
rogues and vagabonds, and committed them, in execution, to the gaol at
Lewes, there to remain till the next Quarter Sessions, and then to be
further dealt with according to law. A short private conference followed
between the magistrates and Mr Adolphus, the result of which was that Mr
Walker was not proceeded against, but entered into a recognizance not to
permit any kind of gaming to be carried on in his house.