stakes to be awarded to the winner of a race, &c., so that the
stakeholder of a race meeting is not under any liability. The provision
was no doubt considered necessary seeing, as has been pointed out at p.
36, that a race for stakes is really a wagering and gaming agreement
among the competitors.
[Sidenote: Agent liable for taking ready-money.]
Although, as we have seen, a person doing business as a commission
agent, and executing such commissions on credit is not within the Act,
yet it seems that if he take money in advance he will be liable. Section
1 provides that taking money as the consideration for securing the
payment _by another person_ on any future contingency is an illegal
purpose. The text of the statute is given _ante_, p. 165.
[Sidenote: Partnerships.]
We have _ante_ p. 162 ventured the opinion that in a partnership formed
to carry on an illegal gaming house no action could be maintained by one
partner against the rest for an account of profits. The same, of course,
applies to illegal betting houses, but subject to this, that in a
betting partnership it will be very material to see whether the firm are
really doing an illegal business at all; if the business be simply that
of betting at a lawful club, or if they do an ordinary commission agency
business, there is nothing illegal in this, as we have just explained
under the title of “illegal betting.”
[Sidenote: Income Tax.]
Income Tax must be paid on profits even if the business be illegal.
_Partridge_ v. _Mallandaine_, 18 Q. B. D., 276.
[Sidenote: Stewards’ authority in grand stand.]
Considering how the law stands with regard to the liability of owners or
occupiers of enclosures, for allowing them to be used for the purpose of
betting with the public resorting thereto, it may be as well to notice
that by law they have somewhat arbitrary powers in the matter of
allowing persons to remain therein, even after they have paid their
money. Thus in _Wood_ v. _Leadbitter_,[395] Lord Eglinton was steward of
the Doncaster races. Plaintiff was in the grand stand, having obtained
admission by ticket issued by the authority of Lord Eglinton. Defendant
by his lordship’s direction ordered plaintiff to leave the grand stand.
It was assumed for the purposes of the case that plaintiff had in no way
misconducted himself. It was held that the right to come and remain on
the land of another could only be granted by deed; otherwise it was a
mere license revocable at any time without returning the money paid for
the ticket.
[Sidenote: Advertising betting houses.]
The next kind of offence created by the statute consists in advertising
any house or place as being used for betting purposes or for the
exhibition of betting lists.
[Sidenote: 16 & 17 Vict., c. 119, sec. 7.]