Later on he says: "Thus there is a concatenation of statutory, provisions, the result of which is that it is perfectly lawful, not only to arrest persons found in béttinghouses, but also to bind them over not to do any of the acts prohibited bby the Act of Henry VILL. In shotty the Acts of 16 and 17 Viet. e139 and 8 and 9 Vict.e.109 confer the power to bind over persons found in, betting-houses as if they were per~ Sons resorting. to. gaming-houses. The contention on' behalf of the appellant (viz, that there was no evidence: against the appellant of haunting, resorting and_ playing') entirely gives the go-by to the form of the warrant."
Lord Justice Chitty in the course of his judgment in the same case is entry is not now made by the justices in person, but is made by the police acting vader a warrant, and the justices have now the same power as to binding over as when they acted only under the Statute of Henry VIII. Tt is dite ficult to see what could be the object of justifying the arrest of persons found on the premises, if such persons when arrested were entitled to be at once discharged, Reading the different Acts. of lament together in my opinion the result is that, we have a. se statutes authorizing, such an order as has been made by the magistrate in the present case. I think, therefore, that the cone clusion arrived at by the magistrate was correct; it is not only his own Individaal opinion, but, as he states jin the ease, he has followed the practice of his colleagues, This at the same time deals with the sixth point raised by the accused, vig, that there is no proof that the accused haunted, resorted, and layed at 1816 Bubbling Well Rend, The third point relied on accused i Ut the det 99. Bene 'VILL €.9 cannot be applied to Britislt subjects in China, "Disembowelled Remains"
The act has been referred to the "disembowelled reinaing, Statute nearly 400 years elf," and 'a4 an example of class legislation, Tk must however be noted that the ports of the Act now In force wera Toft. in force by the Gaming "Act, 1845 "(Band 9 Viel. €-100), thas since the case Jenks v. Turyin, 1884 (AR. QBD. Vol, XIIL_p.505) it appears to have been enforced reularly, and that its validity Yao ut been questioned since the ca of Murphy v. Arrow in 1807. parts of the Act. which could be escribed as savouring of class tion were repeated by th ing Act of 1845, and the defence ras been at some trouble to show that the people affected by the pres ent application are well to. do, Now both Lindley, M.R, and Chitty, Lg. in their judgments appear to have regarded the Act a tone of a series of acts relating to gaming. There appears to be 20 more reason to regard the act 28 not applicable to British subject $n China than the Gaming Act of 1845 any of the acts cling with arning.
Ts support of the contention the defence one case. is cited, Macnee v. Persian Investment Cor Poration (LR. 1890 Eh. D. Vol. XLIV, 06), This case decided that it was. not made illegal fox a company in England to set lottery' in Persia, where lotter were legal, by the Lotteries "Act, 1722 (0 Geo. 1, e.19).
Tt did not however" decide that it was legal for British subjects in China to: set up lotteries in China and no reference was made either in the argument or the judgment 6 the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, and Tram of opinion that this ease has bearing on the present ease, Supreme Court Decisions}
On the other hand there hava) been decisions from the earliest deys of H.B.M. Supreme Court Cama which show that the gaming acts are applicable to British subs jects in China, decisions by Supreme Court and therefore binds ing in this Court, Tu the ease R. v. Bellbin ("North China Herald," Jan—June, 1972 90) Mr. RA. Mowat, sitting Police Court Magistrate, held that
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.