430 



GAMING. 



Where a 

 London 

 apprentice 

 ' ' frequents ' ' 

 Gaming. 



Where a 

 Clergyman 

 plays at un- 

 lawful 

 Games. 



Unfair or 

 excessive 

 Gaming. 

 Using false 

 Dice. 



Winning ex- 

 orbitant 

 sums. 



recreation, are not offences at common law ; sneTi trans- 

 actions, however, have never met with much encourage- 

 ment when brought into a Court (a). 



By the custom of London, it is a sufficient cause for a 

 Master to turn away his Apprentice, that he frequents 

 Graming, and he may justify it before the Chamberlain (b). 



But it is laid down that the Bishop cannot refuse to 

 induct a Clergyman when presented to a living, merely 

 because he is a Player at unlawful Gfames, or a Haunter 

 of Taverns {c) ; because, as Sir Simon Degge says, each of 

 these is not malum in sc, but only malum prohibitum {d). 



An Indictment lies for unfair or excessive Gaming, 

 which has always been considered illegal {e). 



"Common players and hazarders with false Dice" are 

 indictable (/"), and even an infant may be indicted for 

 cheating with false Dice {cj). 



The winning of exorbitant sums of money has been dis- 

 couraged both by Courts of Law and Equity. Thus, in 

 the case of Sir Bazil FirehmMc v. Brett (A), it appeared 

 that the defendant and Sir William Eussell dined with 

 the plaintiff at his house, and after dinner fell into play. 

 When they began, the defendant and Sir William Eussell 

 had not above eight guineas between them, but they won 

 about 900/. in ready money, which the defendant brought 

 away with him. The plaintiif, upon losing this, being 

 somewhat inflamed by wine, brought down a bag of 

 guineas, containing about 1,500/., which the defendant 

 also won ; but as he was leaving the house witli it in his 

 possession, the plaintiff and his servants seized upon it, 

 and took it from him. The plaintiff had brought an in- 

 formation against the defendant for playing with false 

 Dice, but he was acquitted. The defendant then brought 

 an action of Trespass against the plaintiff for taking from 

 him in a forcible manner this bag of guineas. The Lord 

 Chancellor granted an injunction to stay these proceedings 

 at law, though the defendant had by answer denied all the 

 circumstances of fraud charged in the Bill. And his Lord- 

 ship said, that he thought the sum very exorbitant for a 



(ff) Bac. Abr. tit. Gaming, A. ; 

 Dalton, c. 23 ; Shcrhon v. Colthacl:, 

 2 Vent. 175 ; Crockford v. Lord 

 Maidstone, Appendix. 



(i) Woodroffe v. Farnham, 2 Vem. 

 291. 



[c) Specofs case, 5 Rep. 58 a, 

 p. 118. 



{d) Degge's P. C, Part 1, 

 Chap. 1. 



{e) 2 Rol. Abr. 78. 



( /') LecHer s crtse, Cro. Jac. 497. 



iff) Bac. Abr. Infant (H.). 



(h) Sir Basil Fircbrasse v. Brett, 

 1 Vem. 489 ; Sir Bazill Firehraas v. 

 Brett, 2 Vern. 70. 



