A\ AGE lis. 423 



Gramiug Houses {)>), has made various important provisions sion of Bet- 

 witli respect to Betting, and with respect to receiving ^^^S Houses, 

 money, &c., as the consideration for any assui-ances, &c., 

 to pay money, &c. (o) — or as a Deposit on any Bet, on 

 condition of paying any money, &c. — " on the happening of 

 any event or contingency of or relating to a Horse Race, or 

 any other Eace, or any Fight, Game, Sport or Exercise " {p) . 



The Stock- Jobbing Act (7 Greo. 2, c. 8), which is inti- The Stock- 

 tuled " An Act to prevent the infamous Practice of Stock- Jobbing Act. 

 Jobbing," was passed with a view to prevent a common 

 practice which had been found destructive to the interests 

 of the country. It rendered illegal all Time bargains in 

 the Public Funds (q), but Time bargains relating to 

 Shares (r), or in Foreign Funds (s), were held not to be 

 void either under the Act or at Common Law. The Act 

 was repealed in 18G0 by the 23 & 24 Yict. c. 28. 



AVhere each i^arty means to break the contract, but to Gaming on 

 ffive the other a remedy ao:ainst him for the difference of ^^ ^^ock 



O I/O ^ ^ JTi X C n cjTl Q*6 



price, according as the Market may rise or fall, it is a ° ' 



Gfambling transaction, being a mere Bet upon the futm-e 

 price, and the contract is therefore void under 8 & 9 Viet, 

 c. 109 {f). 



Thus in a Time bargain in Shares, it is understood by As in a time 

 both parties that the Shares are never to be delivered into ^^rgam. 

 the hands of the purchaser. It is nothing more than a 

 Wager made between the parties upon the diif erence of the 

 price at the time that the supposed purchase is made, and 

 the price on the settlement day. If the shares rise one 

 party is to receive, and if they fall he is to be at a loss. 



And the question to be left to the Jury in such case is. Question to 

 whether it be a bond fide contract, which each party at the Je Mt to the 

 time meant to perform, or whether the transaction was not 

 a mere Bet upon the future price of the commodity. And 

 that if neither party intended to buy or sell, it would be no 

 bargain, but a mere Gambling transaction {ii). 



But the statute only atfec-ts the contract which makes Statute only 



(h) See Eetting Houses and (a) Wells -v. Porter, 3 Scott, 141. 



G-aming Houses, post, Chap. 5. [t) Grizetcoodr. Blane, 11 C. B. 



(o) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, s. 1, 540. Aijd f-.ee Barry r. Croske}/, 2 



Appendix. J. & H. 1 ; Coojoer v. Neil, 27 W. R. 



{p) Ibid. ss. 3. o. 159. 



Iq) Oakley v.JUffbi/, S Scott, I9i. («) Ibid. 541; Bennett v. Kail, 



(r) Hewitt v. Price, 4 M. & G. before Mr. Justice Crompton, 



355; Williams v. True, 23 L. T. Guildhall, .Tan. 23, 1853. See Hill 



72. V. Fox, 4 H. & N. 359. 



