Powell v Kempton Park
[1899] Appeal Cases 14318991 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- Defendant used Tattersall's ring at Kempton Park racecourse for bookmaking. Betting Act 1853: offence to use any "house, office, room, or other place" for betting.
- Issue
- Whether an outdoor enclosure falls within "house, office, room, or other place" for betting purposes.
- Held
- Ejusdem generis rule applied: general words following specific words take colour from them.
- Principle
- Ejusdem generis applied. "Other place" restricted to indoor locations when preceded by "house, office, room" (all indoor spaces). An outdoor enclosure was not ejusdem generis.
Facts
- Defendant used Tattersall's ring at Kempton Park racecourse for bookmaking
- Betting Act 1853: offence to use any "house, office, room, or other place" for betting
- Prosecution argued "other place" covered any location including outdoor areas
Issue
- Whether an outdoor enclosure falls within "house, office, room, or other place" for betting purposes.
Held
- Ejusdem generis rule applied: general words following specific words take colour from them
- "House, office, room" are all indoor, enclosed spaces
- "Other place" restricted to places of a similar character (indoor)
- Defendant acquitted
Ratio decidendi
Where general words follow specific words in a statute, the general words are limited to things of the same kind (ejusdem generis) as the specific words, unless a contrary intention appears.
Exam use
How to use it in an answer
- Classic ejusdem generis application
- Shows how the genus is identified from the specific words
- Key line: "In Powell v. Kempton Park (1899), 'other place' was read ejusdem generis with 'house, office, room' and restricted to indoor locations, so an outdoor ring was excluded."
Cite this
Citation
Powell v. Kempton Park [1899] Appeal Cases 143Reported: [1899] AC 143. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.