搞个新的“盲盒”系列“Common Law Case Collection”，点开之前读者不会知道讲的哪个案例，以及为什么讲~读这个系列的，大家都是进阶选手了，所以不会配太多讲解，如有疑问的欢迎底下留言，我会私信回复~
Fact:
The “ place ” contemplated by the Betting Act, 1853, ss. 1, 3, is a place which is analogous in its character and use to a betting house or office. Adjacent to a racecourse there was an uncovered inclosure of about a quarter of an acre in extent, fenced in by iron rails, to which, when racemeetings were held, the public were admitted by the proprietors of the racecourse on payment of an entrance fee. The number of persons admitted to this inclosure on race-days varied from 500 to 2000, and among them were always a number of professional bookmakers, varying from 100 to 200, who were admitted on the same terms as the general public, and had no interest in or control over the inclosure, or any part thereof, nor any special rights therein. The greater number of the other members of the public who frequented the inclosure went there for the purpose of backing horses with the bookmakers; but a certain number did not bet at all. With a few exceptions the bets made by the bookmakers in the inclosure related to the particular race then about to be run. The bookmakers sometimes required the backer to deposit his stake and sometimes betted on credit. The bookmakers frequenting the inclosure were accompanied by their clerks, who assisted them in their transactions. They did not confine themselves to any fixed spot in the inclosure, nor did they use any apparatus such as a desk, stool, umbrella, or tent, though any particular bookmaker was usually to be found in or near the same part of the inclosure. No betting-lists were exhibited in the inclosure. The practice of the bookmakers was to call out the odds for the purpose of attracting the attention of backers. The businesses of the different bookmakers were rival and competing. It appeared that at the time of thepassing of the Betting Act, 1853, such inclosures were in like manner frequented by bookmakers, and betting transactions of precisely the same character were therein openly and habitually carried on by them, and had been so carried on since the beginning of the century.
Statute Reference：
It describes not only a place called a betting house or office, but says, “ No house, office, room, or other place shall be opened, kept, or used.”
Legal Reasoning：
It need not be a building built like a house, room, or office; it need not be a covered place ; it need not be railed off, or boarded off, so as to prevent physical access to it except through a particular part of the railing or boarding; but it must be a defined space, capable from its condition of being used by a person who desires so to use it as if it were his house, room, or office, used by him as such for his betting business. I think that the inclosure described and existing in this case was, in consequence of its structural condition, a defined space, capable of being used by a person desirous of so using it as if it were his house, room, or office, used as such for his betting business.
Fact brief：
Lord Esher M.E. This is an appeal from a pro form& decision of the Lord Chief Justice in a case tried before him without a jury. The action was brought against the Kempton Park Bacecourse Company by an alleged shareholder in it asking for an injunction against the company to forbid them from continuing “knowingly and wilfully to permit certain persons to use a certain inclosure belonging to the company illegally within the meaning of the statute 16 & 17 Yict. c. 119.”
Legal Principle：
Ejusdem generis：where list of specific items ending with general item or class, general should be read in the light of the specific ieinterpret according to the class of the specific words.
