STAKEHOLDERS. 395 



to any subscription or contribution, or agreement to sub- 

 scribe or contribute, for or towards any plate, prize or sum 

 of money to be aAvarded to tbe winner or winners of any 

 lawful game, sport, pastime or exercise.' 



" It is clear that there may be in scores of forms ' sub- 

 scriptions or contributions' towards a plate or prize "with- 

 out there being any AVager, and I cannot read this proviso, 

 which has a natural and intelligible meaning, in a different 

 way, and one which would have the effect of neutralizing 

 the enactment. The legislatiu-e, I think, never intended 

 to say that there should be no action brought to recover a 

 sum of money which shall have been deposited in the hands 

 of any person to abide the event on which any Wager shall 

 have been made, and yet that if the Wager is in the form 

 of a subscription or contribution the winner may recover it. 

 I read the proviso thus — ' Provided that so long as there is 

 a subscription which is not a Wager, the second part of the 

 section shall not apply to it.' There is no authority in 

 favour of the view of the defendant, except Batty v. Mar- 

 riott (a), and if that authority is to be followed, it cannot 

 be denied it is a very strong authority for the defendant. 

 What the Court had in their minds in that case was the 

 question whether the Grame was a lawful or an unlawful 

 Game, and having come to the conclusion that it was a 

 lawful Game, they were of opinion that there was nothing 

 in the case which was struck at by the Act of Parliament, 

 and that the Act was only intended to strike at unlawful 

 Games. That view seems to me to be erroneous, and I 

 think that the Court overlooked the first part of the section, 

 which applies to all contracts, lawful or unlawful, by way 

 of Gaming or Wagering. When Batson v. Newman (b) 

 came before this Court, although there was a certain de- 

 gree of difference between that case and Batty v. Mar- 

 riott (a), yet it is obvious that Batty v. Marriott did not 

 meet with approval. I cannot follow that case. I there- 

 fore think that, although there was a deposit of money, the 

 contract in this case was a Wager, and that all the con- 

 sequences which are imposed by sect. 18 on contracts by 

 way of Wagering follow. 



" Then it is said that this is an action by a party to the 

 contract, and that he has revoked the authority given to 

 the defendant to pay over the money, on the ground that 

 the contract is void, and that section 18 has taken away his 



(a) 5 C. B. 818. {b) L. R., 1 C. P. D. 573. 



