420 



WAGERS. 



Second Horse 

 may receive 

 part of the 

 Stakes with- 

 in the pro- 

 viso. 



Effect of 

 wagers being 

 void on note 

 given in pay- 

 ment. 



by the party making default in causing tlie Mare nominated 

 by him to run, it was held by the Irish Court of Queen's 

 Bench that no action was maintainable upon such an 

 agreement, inasmuch as it did not come within the proviso 

 of the Section (i^), which excepts "any Subscription or 

 Contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, for 

 or toward any plate. Prize, or Sum of Money, to be awarded 

 to the Winner or Winners of any lawful Grame, Sport, 

 Pastime, or exercise," from the operation of the previous 

 part of the Section ; and that this Contract was a mere 

 Wager depending upon an accidental circumstance, and 

 not upon the running of a Pace (.r). 



The proviso that the foregoing part of this Section shall 

 not apply to any Subscription or Contribution, for or 

 towards any plate, &c. to be awarded to the Winner or 

 Winners of any lawful game, is not the less applicable 

 where the entire sum of money subscribed is not awarded 

 to the fii'st Horse. Therefore where the conditions of a 

 Pace were that a subscription should be made up of the sum 

 of 3/. each, subscribed by the owners of the Horses, and 

 a sum of thirty sovereigns added thereto out of the Pace 

 Fund, out of which the expenses and a sum of 1/. 10s. were 

 to be deducted and paid to the Treasurer, and 3/. '6s. to 

 the owner of the second Horse, they were held to be good, 

 and satisfied the requirements of the proviso (?/). 



The onus of proving the consideration to be a good 

 one does not lie with the subsequent holder of a promissory 

 note given in payment of money lost on a wager, such 

 wager not being within the statutes to which the 5 & 6 

 Will. 4, c. 41, is applicable, and being therefore simply void 

 within 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, s. 18. Thus in a case {z) in 

 which a promissory note was given in payment of a bet 

 (upon the amount of hop duty payable in 1851, which was 

 not therefore within 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41 (a) ), and an 

 action was brought upon it, it was held that it lay upon 

 the defendant to prove the absence of consideration for it ; 

 for, though proof that a negotiable instrimient was affected 

 with fraud or illegality in the hands of a jorevious holder 

 raises a presumption that he would indorse it away to an 

 agent without value, and consequently calls on the plaintiff 



(m) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, 8. 18. 



(z) Iricin v. Otborne, 5 Ir. Com. 

 Law Eeps. 404. 



{y) Crofton V. CoJgnn, 10 Tr. Com, 

 Law Reps. 133. 



(.-) Fitch V. Jones, 5 E. & B. 238 ; 

 S. v., 24 L. J., Q. B. 293. 



(") As to the scope of this Sta- 

 tute, see post. Chap. 5, and see 

 also the Statute, Appendix. 



