On the Eules of Betting. 43 



his absconding or by the sentence of a competent 

 tribunal. 



If A. has won money from B., which B. refuses to 

 pay on the plea that A. is in default to C. 1)., B., 

 to justify his refusal, must prove that C. D. have 

 demanded their money from A., and have not been 

 able to obtain it, and that it is without their 

 consent that A. remains indebted to them. But I 

 repeat that amicable arrangements between debtors 

 and creditors involving postponements of settle- 

 ments do not constitute cases of default. If A. 

 has won money from B., and cannot get paid at 

 the proper time of settling, A. may declare off any 

 bets with him on future events. A. cannot declare 

 off his bets with B., because B. is indebted to C. ; 

 but if A. has reasonable grounds for thinking that 

 B. will not pay if he loses, he can protect himself 

 by the 4th rule of betting. 



If a person has at any time compromised his 

 betting debts, it is not to be presumed that he will 

 speculate on racing events, until he has paid his 

 creditors in full ; otherwise he can neither in point 

 of justice or good faith exact from any future 

 debtor a larger percentage than he himself paid. 

 The adoption of this principle would give a higher 

 tone to the morality of the betting community, and 

 it ought to be sanctioned by legislative enactment. 



