Genealogy Chat

I'd see whether you can find a copy of the actual law relating to gaming and betting that was in force at the time -- a reference librarian could find it in a jiffy, and could likely help you figure out which section of the law the charge was laid under.

Since one of the charges was frequenting a betting house, it's likely just an alternative charge for the same thing. Maybe in case they couldn't prove it was a betting house, there was a charge of frequenting premises where gambling was going on or some such thing.

Hi Kathryn,
Frequenting a Betting house is one of the other offences listed and for which they were bound over, I am going to see if I can find a newspaper report which hopefully will solve the "crime" Thank you anyway.

Brenda

Here's what the Criminal Code of Canada says now, just for comparison:



http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec210.html

Criminal Code
PART VII: DISORDERLY HOUSES, GAMING AND BETTING
Bawdy-houses

210. ... Landlord, inmate, etc.

(2) Every one who

>>> (b) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common bawdy-house, ...

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction



http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec201.html

Criminal Code
PART VII: DISORDERLY HOUSES, GAMING AND BETTING
Gaming and Betting

201. ... Person found in or owner permitting use

(2) Every one who

>>> (a) is found, without lawful excuse, in a common gaming house or common betting house, ...

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

I would be pretty sure that "frequenting premises" would be the equivalent of what was long called "being a found-in" in Canada.

Being "found in" premises used for one of two illegal purposes -- prostitution and gambling. The slang for the charge is "being a found-in".

Legislators have long tried to tackle the social problems of prostitution and gambling by targeting the premises where they are carried on. It was made illegal to use premises for those purposes, and to be on premises for those purposes.

It might not be possible to prove that someone was actually taking part in gambling or prostitution, but it could be proved that they were on the premises where both were taking place. The possibility of being charged as a "found-in" would be a deterrent to people going to "common bawdy houses" or gambling dens for the obvious purposes.

Thank you everyone, I'll certainly have a look at the sites you gave me Devon Dweller, many thanks.

Brenda

Brenda

I found this which may help : http://www.bl.uk/collections/victoria.html
and theres also
http://www.gazettesonline.co.uk/

Island
I googled 'frequenting premises' and the term seems to be used to describe many things

I am still rather in shock at finding this relative and his crime on the internet, I'm not sure which paper would cover this,I believe he lived in Alpha Place, St. Pancras.

Brenda

Hi Brenda

It's really an open statement isnt it?

It could mean selling something on someones premises or even drinking after hours.
Have you thought about looking at newspapers to see if theres a better explanation?

Thanks Peter, I think I prefer the "swag" option. My cousin found the site with this relative on -" Data from a Policeman's notebook, London-1911-1927", its a fascinating insight of crime in a certain area of London and a policemans record of his arrests.

Brenda

Hi Brenda,

It looks from the punishment of being bound over that there was no firm evidence such as a sack labelled "swag". Presumably they were in or near a building without convincing reasons for being there and they were being warned off.

Peter

Hi Peter,
Looking at other people's arrests "frequenting certain premises" could refer to brothels, though I have not ruled it out! It does sound as if they were actually in the premises - breaking and entry perhaps.

Brenda

Brenda,

I don't know but assume it is like the old catch-all offence of "loitering with inten to commit a crime" whereby a policeman could arrest someone on suspicion that they were about to commit a crime, say, burglary or mugging. Obviously this was open to abuse and has now, to the best of my knowledge, been discontinued.

The only other suggestion is that the premises themselves were disreputable (a brothel?).

Peter

I have just been told of an entry in a policeman's ledger 1911-1927 for one of my relatives. The charge was "frequenting premises" and he was bound over. Can anyone tell me what this actually means please?

Brenda