Prior v Sherwood [1906] HCA 29

H.C. or A. 1906.

Duke or WELLINGTON Gop MINING

Co. v ARMSTRONG.

O'Connor J.

%

H.C. or A. 1906. es Sypsey, May 11, 14, 13.

Griffith C.J., Barton and O'Connor JJ,

HIGH COURT

agreement. Although they now hold and work the land under the new consolidated lease from the Government, they are still liable to pay the royalty agreed upon as compensation under the original agreement. For these reasons I am of opinion that the * learned Chief Justice in the Court below came to a right con- clusion, and that the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitor, for appellants, H. M. Lee, Melbourne.

Solicitors, for respondent, Braham & Pirani, Melbourne, for Mark Lazarus, Ballarat.

BL. (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA} PRIOR = - i és 4 : 4 . APPELLANT; DEFENDANT, AND SHERWOOD . 2 ' 3 ' . RESPONDENT.

COMPLAINANT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

Gaming and Wagering -Place used for Bettiny—Public right of way or lane— Games, Wagers and Betting Houses Act (N.S. W.), (No. 18 of 1902), secs. 17, 19.

A bookmaker carried on his business standing in a lane or right of way which led from a street to the back entrances of some houses facing the street. 'The lane was open to the public at all times, and the part in which the book- maker stood was a cul de sac branching off from the main passage. He had

OF AUSTRALIA.

the entrance to the lane from the street and a few feet from the door of a shop. Tt was not shown that he had any connection with the shop, but people used to enter the shop, in which information as to races and horses was supplied,

apparatus set up in the lane nor any sign to indicate the nature of his business or that he had appropriated any particular part of the lane to himself, but no other bookmakers were present.

'Held, that neither the lane nor any part of it was a place used by the book- maker for the purposes of betting within the meaning of secs. 17 and 19 of the Games, Wagers and Betting-Houses Act 1902.