WAGERS. 419 



reward for information will not evade the Act. In Ilig- 

 (jinson v. SiDfpson {q), the plaintiff was a tipster, i.e. gave 

 information as to the probable winners of Horse races. 

 Upon his giving the name of a Horse to the defendant as 

 the probable winner of a certain race, it was agreed between 

 them that the plaintiff shonld have 21. on the Horse at 25 

 to 1 , that is to say, that if the defendant backed the Horse 

 and won, the j)laintiff should have 50/. out of his winnings, 

 but if the Horse lost the plaintiff should pay the defendant 

 21. The defendant did back the Horse and it won, and 

 the plaintiff thereupon claimed 50/. out of the defendant's 

 winnings ; and it was held that the agreement was void, 

 and that the 50/. could not be recovered. 



It was laid down in the case of Batty v. Marriott (r). Walking 

 that though there be but two subscribers to a plate, prize, or ^^atch. 

 sum of money to be awarded to the winner of a lawful 

 game, and those two subscribers the competitors themselves, 

 yet it is not less a contribution within the exception in the 

 statute, (8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, s. 18,) if the agreement be, 

 that the whole sum subscribed shall be paid over to the 

 winner, and if it be a bond fide subscription or contribution 

 on the part of those two persons. But what the court had in 

 their minds in that case was the question whether the game 

 was a lawful or 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 (s). This view has, however, 

 been recently held by the Court of Appeal to be erro- 

 neous {t) ; and it has been decided that an agreement to 

 walk a match for 200/. a-side, the money being deposited 

 with a stakeholder, is a wager, and null and void under 

 the statute ; and that the deposit of the money is not a 

 subscription or contribution for a sum of money to be 

 awarded to the winner of a lawful game within the proviso. 



And in a case in which the plaintiff agreed with B. Contribution 

 and others, that a match should be made between a Mare, **^ person 

 the property of M., and a Mare, the property of the plain- ^"^er nof 

 tiff, and that the party nominating the winner should receive within pro- 

 from the others 100/., and that 100/. should be forfeited ^^i^*^- 



(?) L. R., 2 C. P. D. 76; 46 Biggie \. Eiqgs, L. R, 2 Ex. D. 



L. J., C. P. 192 ; 36 L. T., N. S. 422 ; 46 L. J., Ex. 721 ; 37 L. T., 



17 ; 25 W. R. 303. N. S. 27 ; 25 W. E. 777— C. A., 



(r) 5 C. B. 832. and ante, p. 394. 



(n) See per Lord Cairns, L. C, (/) JDigglry. Higgf, xbl xiijirr. 



V. E 



O 



