AVAGERS. 427 



Formerly money borrowed for the express purpose of Money bor- 

 settling losses on a Race to the amount of 10/. or upwards rowed to i^ay 

 could not be recovered by the lender, although he bore no 

 part in the transaction (/.•). This was so held on the 

 groimd of illegality ; but as that no longer exists, it would 

 appear that a person borrowing money for the purpose of 

 paying his betting losses on a liace, whatever their amount 

 may be, is as completely indebted to the lender as if he 

 had borrowed it for any other purpose whatsoever. For 

 in a case where an I IJ afforded prima facie evidence of 

 a debt, and an injunction was sought to restrain the party 

 from suing on it, on the ground that a great part of the 

 consideration was money lent for gambling purposes ; on 

 its appearing that the transaction had taken place in a 

 foreign country, where such Grames were not illegal, the 

 injunction was refused (/). 



An Agent authorized by a party to lay Bets for him on A Betting 

 a Eace to the amount of 10/. or upwards, could not if he Agent, 

 lost pay the winner without an express direction so to 

 do (vi). But now since 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, has done away 

 with the illegality of all wagers on Races, a Betting Agent 

 may pay all losses within the scope of his commission, and 

 recover the money so disbursed from his Principal (;?). 

 And an agreement between a Principal and his Agent that 

 the Agent shall employ moneys of the Principal in betting 

 on IPorse-races, and pay over the winnings therefrom to 

 his Principal, is not a contract by way of Gaming and 

 Wagering, and it is not illegal (o) . 



The Act (p) does not make gaming contracts illegal^ but A Betting- 

 null and void, and therefore it would be contrary to public Partner, 

 morality to lay down that a party who has received money 

 lost in a Wager should by pleading this statute escape 

 paying over the fair share to his partner {q). Where 

 therefore a Bill of Exchange was given as a security for 

 a share of money won in betticg transactions a plea of 

 Gaming under 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, s. 18, was held to be 

 bad ((/). 



[k) iPKinneU v. Rohlnson, 3 M. 562; Knight v. Fitch, 15 C. B. 566; 



& W. 434 ; Canne v. Bryan, 3 B. Oulds v. Harrison, 24 L. J., Ex. 



& Aid. 179. 66 ; Buhb v. Yeherton, Ker, In re, 



(0 Quarricrv. C'ohtoi, 1 Turn. & 24 L. T., N. S. 822; 19 W. R. 



Ph. 147. And see Fi/f:e, i:.v 2]arfc, 739. See ante, p. 422. 



Lister, In re, L. E.., 8 Cli. D. 754 ; (o) Becston v. Beeston, L. R., 1 



47 L. J., Bk. 100 ; 38 L. T., N. S. Ex. D. 13 ; 45 L. J., Ex. 230 ; 33 



923 ; 26 W. R 806— C. A. L. T., N. S. 700 ; 24 W. E,. 96. 



(;h) Clayton v. Lilly, 4 Taunt. {p) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18. 



165. [q] Johnson v. Lansley, 12 C. B. 



(«) Knight x. fambcrs, 15 C. B. 168. Sec ante, pp. 420, 122. 



