of sections 1 and 3; here it is, abbreviated but not altered: “Any person who, being the owner or occupier of any place, or a person using the same, shall open, keep, or use the same for the purpose of any money being received, etc.; and any person who, being the owner or occupier, shall knowingly and wilfully permit the same to be opened, kept, or used by _any other person_ for the purpose of any money being received, etc.” Everything turns upon the italicised words. Lord Chancellor Halsbury and the majority of the judges took the only view under which it was possible to protect the rings, by holding those italicised words to mean a person having authority over the whole ring, a person analogous to and of the same genus as the owner or occupier, and therefore as not applying to any one of the various bookmakers carrying on business on his own account within it. Three questions which were not asked should have disposed of this view entirely:— (1) If the _any other person_ is a person analogous to and of the same genus as the owner or occupier, why is he in this second part of section 3 clearly considered to be in the subordinate position of a user by permission? And if this second part of the section does not hit such a person as the bookmaker, what possible person can it be aimed at, not already struck by the first part of the section (other than those having the care or management separately named later on)? (2) Why did the Act immediately stop the business of the town houses? For, under the construction now given to it, the proprietor had merely to alter his arrangements, announcing that he himself would take no part in the betting, but would get his profit by an entrance fee charged to all comers alike, as the proprietors of the rings do. (3) Under this construction, what is to prevent houses or rooms being opened in towns by hairdressers, tobacconists, or others, charging an entrance fee to all comers, but the proprietor taking no part in the betting? Briefly summed up, the House of Lords’ judgment comes to this. The Kempton Park ring owners or occupiers are not responsible, because they do not themselves carry on the business of betting in the ring; and the bookmakers are not responsible, because, although they do this, they are not owners or occupiers, or persons using the same in control of, or authority in the place.