known as Sister Mary at the home in Soho, stated that about a year ago she had got the prisoner a servant girl, who was afterwards removed, but she had only seen the prisoner once, on that occasion, and knew nothing of the girl in question.

On this occasion the prisoner was convicted, and the case was reserved as to whether there was evidence to sustain the charge.

Dickens for the prisoner.-There was no evidence to sustain the charge. The verdict was taken on the fourth count, and that alleges that the prisoner "unlawfully and by fraud detained the child." There is no evidence that she detained the child, for there was no evidence that she had possession of her when the charge was made; and, therefore, there is no evidence that she detained her "by fraud." Taking her story to be utterly untrue, what evidence is there that she detained the child by fraud? And, if it be true, then the child is in the possession or custody of other persons. [HAWKINS, J.-Even so, she having delivered the child over unlawfully and against the will of the mother, she may be deemed unlawfully to detain the child, on the principle of Jones v. Dowle (9 M. & W. 19), where it was held that, if the defendant had unlawfully, after demand, delivered over goods to a third party, he was, nevertheless, guilty of unlawfully detaining.] That might make her liable for unlawfully detaining the child, but not for unlawfully detaining her by fraud. What evidence was there of fraud? [HAWKINS, J.-The different accounts she gave to the mother, some of which must have been untrue; and then she got the mother to sign a paper containing a supposed consent, which she must have known the mother could not read, and which she did not read to her nor tell her the contents of, but which she afterwards said contained a consent to part with the child. There is enough evidence of fraud.]

GROVE, J. took the same view. The defence set up was that the child had got into the possession of somebody else, but that, if true, was by the fault of the prisoner, who had told falsehoods about it; and, if she fraudulently detained the child from the mother by placing the child in the custody of someone else, the child, for this purpose, would still be in her own custody, and she would be deemed unlawfully and fraudulently to detain her.

STEPHEN, J.-If the prisoner, having got the child, kept her with the intention of handing her over to someone else, and did so against the will of the parent, that is a detention; and, as she did it by means of falsehoods, the detention was fraudulent.

WILLIAMS, J. also agreed, observing that he should have drawn the same inferences, and given the same verdict, as the jury had done.

MATHEW, J. also concurred.

Conviction accordingly upheld.

REG.

v.

JOHNSON.

1884.

Abduction of child.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.-QUEEN'S BENCH

DIVISION.

May 26, 27, and June 26.

(Before HAWKINS and SMITH, JJ.)

JENKS AND OTHERS (apps.) v. TURPIN AND ANOTHER (resps.)(a)

Common gaming-house - Unlawful gaming-Baccarat - Proprietary club-Proprietor-Committee-Players-33 Hen. 8, c. 9-8 & 9 Vict. c. 109-17 & 18 Vict. c. 38, s. 4.

By 33 Hen. 8, c. 9, s. 11, "No manner of person or persons shall for his or their gain, lucre, or living, keep, have, hold, occupy, exercise, or maintain any common house, alley, or place of bowling, coiting, cloysh-cayls, half-bowl, tennis, dicing table, or carding, or any other manner of game prohibited by any statute heretofore made, or any other unlawful new game now invented or made, or any other new unlawful game hereafter to be invented, found, had, or made, upon pain to forfeit, &c."

By 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 1, so much of the above Act, "whereby any game of mere skill, such as bowling, coyting, cloysh-cayls, half-bowl, tennis, or the like is declared an unlawful game," is repealed; and by sect. 2, "in default of other evidence proving any house or place to be a common gaming-house, it shall be sufficient in support of the allegation. . . . to prove that such house or place is kept or used for playing therein at any unlawful game, and that a bank is kept there by one or more of the players exclusively of the others; or that the chances of any game played therein are not alike favourable to all the players, including among the players the banker or other person by whom the game is managed, or against whom the other players stake, play, or bet; and every such house or place shall be deemed a common gaming-house, such as is contrary to law, and forbidden to be kept by 33 Hen. 8, c. 9."

By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 38, s. 4, "Any person being the owner or occupier, or having the use of any house, room, or place, who shall open, keep, or use the same for the purpose of unlawful gaming being carried on therein, and any person who, being the owner or occupier of any house or room, shall knowingly and wilfully permit the same to be opened, kept, or used by any other person for the purpose aforesaid, and any person having the

(a) Reported by J. SMITH, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

care or management of, or in any manner assisting in conducting the business of any house, room, or place, opened, kept, or used for the purpose aforesaid, and any person who shall advance or furnish money for the purpose of gaming with persons frequenting such house, room, or place, may, on summary conviction thereof before any two justices of the peace, be adjudged by such justices to forfeit and pay such penalty, not exceeding five hundred pounds, as to such justices shall seem fit, &c." The P. proprietary club was, by its rules, to consist of 500 members; its internal arrangements were to be managed by a committee of twelve of them, with whom also rested the election of members; hazard was not to be played, nor dice used in the club-house; the points at whist were not to exceed 11.; and the committee had power to make such bye-laws and regulations as might appear necessary for the good order and regulation of the club. The proprietor was remunerated by the entrance fees and annual subscriptions of members and card money, the kitchen being carried on at a loss, and the wines and cigars being sold at almost cost price. There was habitually played in the club, for from eight to thirteen hours nightly, the game of baccarat, a game of chance played with cards, at which sums of money from 251. to 1000l. were lost every twenty minutes, by reason whereof the proprietor became possessed of money compared with which the sums received for the entrance fees and subscriptions were insignificant. The proprietor of the club, four members of the committee, and three players of baccarat in the house, having been convicted by a magistrate of an offence against 17 & 18 Vict. c. 38, s. 4: Held, on case stated, that the game of baccarat, being a game of cards other than a game of mere skill, was an "unlawful game" within the meaning of 33 Hen. 8, c. 9, s. 11, and 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 1, and the club a common gaming-house within the meaning of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 2; and that, therefore, the proprietor was, on the facts stated, rightly convicted under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 38, s. 4, of "being the occupier of, and opening, keeping, or using," and the committee-men of "having the care and management of and assisting in conducting the business of" the club "for the purpose of unlawful gaming being carried on therein;" but that the players were wrongly convicted under the said section, inasmuch as the mere membership of and playing in the club did not amount to "assisting in conducting the business" of it within the meaning of the section.

THIS

HIS was a case stated under the provisions of 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, and 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, and the Rules of Court made in pursuance of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 77, the appellants being Morris Jenks, Sir Charles Cunningham, Lewis David Franklin, John C. Wilkinson, Francis Phillips, Arthur Fitch, Sussex Nesbit, and Frederick Charles Hayes, and the respondents Newman Turpin, inspector of police, and Sir James Taylor

JENKS AND

OTHERS

v.

TURPIN AND

ANOTHER.

1884. Unlawful gaming-Pro

prietary club.

JENKS AND Ingham, chief magistrate of the police courts of the metropolis. The case was as follows:

OTHERS

v.

TURPIN AND
ANOTHER.

The appellants were duly summoned before the respondent, Sir James Ingham, chief magistrate of the police courts of the metropolis, sitting at Bow-street Police-court, on the 7th day of 1884. February, 1884, for having on the 1st day of December, 1883, at Unlawful 7, Park-place, St. James's-street, in the Metropolitan Police gaming-Pro- District, each committed offences against sect. 4 of 17 & 18 Vict. prietary club. c. 38, which is as follows:

Any person being the owner or occupier, or having the use of any house, room, or place, who shall open, keep, or use the same for the purpose of unlawful gaming being carried on therein, and any person who being the owner or occupier of any house or room shall knowingly and wilfully permit the same to be opened, kept, or used by any other person for the purpose aforesaid, and any person having the care or management of or in any manner assisting in conducting the business of any house, room, or place, opened, kept, or used for the purpose aforesaid, and any person who shall advance or furnish money for the purpose of gaming with persons frequenting such house, room, or place, may, on summary conviction thereof before any two justices of the peace, be adjudged by such justices to forfeit and pay such penalty not exceeding 500l. as to such justices shall seem fit, and may be further adjudged by such justices to pay such costs attending such conviction as to them shall seem reasonable, and on the nonpayment of such penalty and costs, or in the first instance, if to the said justices it shall seem fit, may be committed to the common gaol or house of correction, with or without hard labour, for any time not exceeding twelve calendar months.

The appellants had each a right to claim to be tried by a jury according to sect. 17 of 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, and the respondent, Sir James Ingham, hereinafter called the magistrate, informed them of their right, and asked whether they desired to be tried by a jury. Their counsel and solicitor waived that right, and stated that they would submit to the magistrate's summary jurisdiction. It was further agreed that the cases of all the appellants should be heard and determined on the same evidence, each being allowed to make their defence either personally or by counsel or solicitor. There were similar summonses against all the defendants for committing the same offence on the 28th and 29th days of November, 1883, and although the evidence of those offences was identical with that of the offence on the 1st day of December, on which the magistrate adjudicated, only one penalty for one offence was adjudged on conviction.

It was proved that Jenks was the proprietor of the Park Club, and occupier of the house, 7, Park-place, St. James's-street. It was proved that John C. Wilkinson, Sir Charles Cunningham, Lewis David Franklin, and Francis Phillips were members of the committee of management of the said club, and that Arthur Fitch, Sussex Nesbit, and Frederick Charles Hayes were players of baccarat in the said house on the said 1st day of December, 1883. The powers of the committee are set out in the rules of the club (a), and letters of the secretary showed that the committee had given orders that between certain days baccarat should not be played by any members of the card-room; that

(a) These rules are, so far as material, set out in the judgments delivered by the Court.

JENKS AND

OTHERS

v.

subsequently the committee had resolved to allow the said game of baccarat to be resumed by members in the card-room; and that finally on the 18th day of January, 1884, at a full meeting of TURPIN AND the committee, a resolution was unanimously passed suspending the game of baccarat until after the 31st day of January following.

The general facts are contained in the notes of evidence, which, so far as are material, are as follows:

Inspector Donald Swanson (Criminal Investigation Department) :

On the 19th day of December I went to the Park Club, 7, Park-place, St. James'sstreet, accompanied by Inspector Turpin. I saw the proprietor, Mr. Jenks, and Mr. Dalton, the secretary. I asked Mr. Jenks to tell me the particulars respecting the club that I would ask him. I wrote down in his presence what he said, and subsequently read it over to him. The statement is as follows: "Morris Jenks says: The Park Club was opened by me on or about June or July, 1882. At the game of baccarat a regulation bank is the one taken by one of the members in his turn who chooses to take it. It must not be less than 501. Every third bank before 2 a.m. is a regulation bank; the other banks are offered at auction. Each banker pays 1 per cent. and the punters 5s. each, which is called "card money," up to 2 a.m. Aftor that hour 5s. an hour is charged up till 5 a.m., when, to make playing prohibitory, 17. an hour is charged. The club is a proprietary one, of which I am the proprietor. The profits, if any, go to me. The profits arise from subscriptions and card money. The kitchen has been a loss, and wines and cigars sold at almost cost price." On the 21st day of December I saw him again. He then said, "Members' own cheques are cashed by my authority, and 1 per cent. is charged as an insurance against bad cheques. I should not cash any member's cheques beyond a reasonable amount. I should cash cheques to the amount of 2004., which I consider a reasonable amount." I understood the game was played according to the rules, and that each member could take the bank by putting his name down on the slate.

Inspector Turpin corroborated.

Frederick Hatton (night steward of the Park Club) :

Mr. Jenks is the only proprietor I know. There is a card-room at the club. Baccarat is played there nightly. It requires a special table, with arrangements for the banker and punters. My duties are in the card-room. About twelve gentlemen play nightly, beginning at 4.30 p.m. and ceasing at 7.30 p.m.; commencing again from 10.30 to 11 p.m. and continuing till 3 o'clock a.m. and up to 8 o'clock in the morning. There would be a fresh bank every twenty minutes. If the bank lost, the word "banco" would close the bank, which means that the punter declines to play for the amount of money in the bank. I cash the cheques for Mr. Jenks amounting to 2001. to a member. I would cash more than one cheque a night for a member. The bank would not unusually amount to 3001. I hand over all moneys to the proprietor, and I receive the money to cash cheques from Mr. Jenks. When the banker has lost his money the bank is ended, but he can renew it three times, paying nothing for renewals. The banker has to put down ready money to the amount of 300. The game is played sometimes with three packs of whist cards, so there would be 156 cards. There would be about sixteen deals before the cards would be exhausted, which takes about twenty minutes.

Stephen Coleman (one of the defendants) :

I have been in the habit of playing baccarat at the club, and have seen banks from 257. to 300%. I was present on the three nights specified in the summons, and the game of baccarat was played on those nights upon the average I have named. The game has been higher. An open bank is 1000l. and upwards. I have known it reached very seldom, possibly once a week. I never saw it over 1000l. The object of the game is to get nine. Ten is baccarat. The skill is in knowing when to draw and when not to draw. All the fairly-exercised skill in the world would not enable you to draw the nine of cards, if you had no luck. The nine beats every card below it. Baccarat is a fair game between the players. The chances are equal, and no advantage is to be had

ANOTHER.

1884.

Unlawful gaming-Proprietary club.