^": 



WAGERS. 425 



paid witliout interest ; it was lield not to be a Policy on 

 the life of the testator within ]■! Gfeo. 3, o. 48 {b). 



As no Wager can be tried in any Com't of Law or Paying a Bet. 

 Equity, the "Winner cannot compel payment from the 

 Loser (c) ; and therefore if the money be paid, it is in fact 

 giving a gratuity. 



If a Note, Bill or Mortgage be taken as a secmity for Giving a 

 money, either won by betting on the sides and hands of security, 

 persons Gaming, or hnoiiinghj lent for the purpose of such 

 betting^ or where such betting is going on, the consideration 

 is illegal under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41. But any other 

 secmity under seal would appear to be good, where the 

 Graming is not illegal {d). 



A bond given to persons to whom the obligor has lost 

 Bets on Horse-races, which he is unable to pay, in order to 

 prevent them from taking the steps which, under the con- 

 ventional code established among betting men, they are 

 entitled to take, and which would be followed by conse- 

 quences involving the obligor in considerable pecuniary 

 loss, is valid [e). 



So that if a Note or Bill be given in payment of any Where a note 

 Bet, except such as has been made on the sides or hands '^\^^^ ^^ ^ 

 of persons Gaming, it is in reality a gift, and its value ^^ 

 will depend upon circumstances. Thus where a bill had 

 been given gratuitously, Lord Abinger, C. B., in deliver- 

 ing the Judgment of the Court of Exchequer, in Easton v. 



ratehett {/), said, "If a man give money as a gratuity, 

 it cannot be recovered back, because the act is complete ; 

 yet a man who promises to give money cannot be sued on 

 such promise ; and if so, I do not see how a promise in 

 writing not under seal can have any binding effect. The 

 law makes no difference between such a promise and a 

 verbal one. There is the same distinction as to a Bill of 

 Exchange. If a party gives to another a negotiable in- 

 strument on which other pai-ties are liable, the man w^ho 

 makes the gift cannot recover the bill back, and the man 

 to whom the bill is given may recover against the other 

 parties on the bill ; but it is a very different question 



{b) Cook V. Field, 15 Q. B. 475. [e) Bulb v. Yelverton, L. R., 9 



(c) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18. And Eq. 471 ; 39 L. J., Ch. 428 ; 22 



see per Lord Cairns, L. C, JJifi'ile L. T., N. S. 258 ; 18 W. R. 512. 



V. Iliqgs, L. R., 2 Ex. D. 422; if) Easton \. Pratchctt, 1 C. M. 



46 L.J., Ex. 721 ; 37 L. T., N. S. & R. 798 ; 8. C. 3 Dowl. 472 ; 1 



27. Gale, 83 ; and see the same case in 



{d) See Gaming, post, Chap. 4. error, 2 C. M. & R. 542 ; 4 Dowl. 



549 ; 1 Gale, 250 ; 6 C. & P. 736. 



