We have pointed out that the Act could have been shown to apply to the bookmakers but for the disgraceful collusion of this case, in which plaintiff and defendants desired the same result; but it is proper to qualify this by saying that the professional men, upon one side at all events, should be looked on as dupes rather than accomplices. Unhappily, it must be added that such a black page of disgrace would not have defaced our Law Reports but for private and influential pressure brought to bear upon certain members of the Courts of such a nature as to have outweighed with them the fearful responsibility of throwing open every public-house in the kingdom—indeed, potentially, every private house—as an authorised betting establishment; for the decisions finding public-houses to be “places” because bookmakers carry on business in them is absolutely contrary to the Powell-Kempton Park judgment, although this is done occasionally by the Courts, most anxious as all of them are to prevent the evils arising from public-house betting; but the shifts to which they are driven to reconcile their decisions with the Kempton judgment are almost as amusing as they are humiliating. Thus the strong arm of the Act of 1853 has been temporarily paralysed, and these peripatetic Monte Carlos all over the kingdom, the rings, have had their lives prolonged for the present. There are, however, two subordinate sections, 5 and 7, which are of great importance, or rather have become so through the exertions of the National Anti-Gambling League. By judgments obtained in the King’s Bench Division, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal (_Lennox_ v. _Stoddart_ and _Davis_ v. _Stoddart_, C.A. 1902—2 K.B.), under sections 1 and 3 of the 1853 Act, the deposit of money for betting is illegal, even though not made direct to the house or place of business of the bookmaker. By these judgments it will be seen that all bookmakers advertising from offices in the United Kingdom and receiving deposits (before the issue of the events betted upon) there _or elsewhere_, directly or indirectly, are keepers of betting-houses, and their advertisements illegal under section 7; and that the newspaper proprietors admitting these advertisements are also offenders under the same section. This has only recently become clear in law, and still awaits application on a large scale. The same remark applies to the operation of section 5, under which, by the Court of Appeal decisions referred to, all such deposits can be reclaimed for the senders by the special statutory right of the Act; in the words of Lord Justice Matthew, as “a penalty, or mulct in the nature of a penalty, for a violation of the terms of the Act of Parliament.” In many cases considerable sums have already been refunded by the bookmakers, but, while any loophole is left open by doubts as to the application of the Act of 1853 to bookmakers ostensibly giving no address in the United