422 



AVAGERS. 



Decision in 

 Equity. 



Money paid 

 on illegal 

 game not re- 

 coverable. 



The Act for 

 the suppres- 



use of the plaintiff (o) , and where money has been paid 

 by a third party for the Loser of a Wager to the Winner, 

 it is no answer to an action for money paid by the third 

 party for the use of the Loser at his request (./), or 

 without his request, if the third party is his agent for 

 making bets, unless deprived of the authority to do so 

 in express terms (g), that the money was paid in respect 

 of losses on Wagering Contracts made void by 8 & 9 Vict, 

 c. 109, s. 18. 



But in the case of Beyer v. Adams (//), in which the 

 amount of a bet lost at a race was paid by the Loser into 

 the hands of a third party, who was the Betting Agent 

 of the Winner, and who died before he had paid it to the 

 Winner, it was held by Yice-Chancellor Stuart, upon a 

 claim being made by the Winner for payment out of the 

 deceased's estate of the amount due to him, and which 

 had been paid to the deceased, that this case was within 

 the words of the Statute that "no action or suit shall be 

 brought for recovering any sum of money won upon any 

 wager" («), and the claim was thereupon disallowed. It 

 must be observed that this decision is contrary to the 

 whole current of authority embodied in the decisions of 

 the Courts of Common Law (A-) . 



When the game itself is illegal, or the money has been 

 won by some fraud or unlawfid device, so as to render the 

 winning of it illegal under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 17, it 

 is probable that an action would not lie to recover money 

 knowingly paid by the plaintiff (being a third party), at 

 the defendant's request, to a person to. whom the defendant 

 has thus lost it (/). 



The Act for the Suppression of Betting Houses (;;?), 

 which is treated of in the Chapter on Betting Houses and 



{e) Johnson v. Lansley, 12 C. B. 

 468. 



(/) Knight v. Cambers, 15 C. B. 

 562 ; Knight v. Fitch, 15 C. B. 

 566 ; Jessop v. Lutivi/tch, 24 L. J., 

 Ex. 65 ; Lyne\. Siesfdd, 1 H. &N. 

 278; Rosewarnc N. Billing, lOJur., 

 K. S. 496. 



[g) Oiilds V. Harrison, 24 L. J., 

 Ex. 66 ; Bnhb v. Yclverton, Kcr, 

 In re, 24 L. T., N. S. 822; 19 

 W. R. 739 ; Oalcham v. Banndvn, 

 44 L. J., C. P. 309; 32 L. T., 

 N. S. 825. 



{h) Beyer v. Adams, 26 L. J., 

 Ch. 841. 



(0 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18. 



(/.') Knight v. Cambers, 15 C B. 

 562 ; Knight v. FUch, 15 C. B. 566 ; 

 JessopY. Lntxcgtch, 24L. J., Ex. 65; 

 Quids V. Harrison, 24 L. J., Ex. 66 ; 

 Ly7w V. Siesjeld, 1 H. & N. 278 ; 

 Bosocarnc v. Billing, 10 Jur., N. S. 

 496. 



(/) Chitty on Contracts, 1 1th ed. 

 548. See M^Kinnell v. Bobinson, 3 

 M. & W. 434 ; also post. 



(m) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, Ap- 

 pendix. 



