390 



RACING, ^STAKEHOLDERS AND STEWARDS. 



But though 

 a good Cus- 

 tom, not an 

 Easement 

 within the 

 Prescription 

 Act. 



But thougli it is a good custom at Common Law for tlie 

 citizens of a particular town to enter upon a certain piece 

 of land on a particular day for tlie purpose of Horse- 

 Racing, this is not " an easement" mtbin the Prescription 

 Act (e), the words of which are " no claim which may be 

 lawfully made at common law by custom, prescription, or 

 grant, to any way or other easement, or to any water- 

 course, or to the use of any water to be enjoyed upon any 

 land, &c., when such way or other matter shall have been 

 actually enjoyed by any person claiming right thereto 

 without interruption for twenty years, shall be defeated or 

 destroyed by showing only that such way, &c. was first 

 enjoyed at any time prior to such period of twenty years." 

 To make this custom to race a claim of right within the 

 term " easement" in this section, it must be one analogous 

 to that of a right of way, and a right of watercourse which 

 follows it, and must be a right of utility and benefit, and 

 not one of mere recreation and amusement (/). 



Sweepstakes. 



Matches. 



The Act for 

 the sujjpres- 

 sion of Bet- 

 ting Houses. 



STAKEHOLDERS. 



A Sweepstakes is a Stake or Fund for which at least 

 three entrances must be made. There may be any num- 

 ber of Subscribers or Contributors, and the whole Stake or 

 Fund becomes, under certain regulations, the property of 

 the Winner {(/). 



Many Races run with Horses are Matches, that is, 

 where the Horse of one person runs against the Horse of 

 another for certain Stakes to be awarded to the Winner. 

 Such Matches are no doubt lawful, but it seems that the 

 Winner would not be entitled to recover the Stakes from 

 the Stakeholder, or from the Loser, if they were in his 

 hands, as the transaction is simply a Wager and void 

 under the 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, s. 18 (//). 



The " Act for the Suppression of Betting Houses " (?) 

 does not " extend to any person receiving or holding any 

 money or valuable thing by way of Stakes or Deposit to 



(e) 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71, s. 2. 



(/■) Per Martin, B., Moioiseij v. 

 Ismaij, 34 L. J., Ex. 52. 



{g) Batty v. Marriott, 5 C. B. 

 831. 



(A) Batson v. Xeicman, L. E,., 1 



C. P. D. 573 ; 25 W. K. 85 ; and 

 see Bifjglc v. Higos, L. P., 2 Ex. 



D. 422; 46 L. J., Ex. 721. A 

 contrary opinion was expressed in 



the third edition of this work ; hut 

 the authority for that opinion, viz. , 

 Batty V. Marriott, 5 C. B. 831, has 

 since been overruled by I)iggle v. 

 Hiqgs. See post, p. 394. 



{() 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, s. 6, Ap- 

 pendix ; and see Wagers, post, 

 Chap. 5 ; Betting Houses, post, 

 Chap. 6. 



