432 



GAMING, 



Conspiracy 

 to cheat at 



Slcittles. 



Conspiracy 

 to cheat at 

 Cards. 



Where a cri- 

 minal infor- 

 mation was 

 refused. 



Contracts for 

 Gaming'. 



Money de- 

 positf d for 

 Gaming-. 



s. 17 ; aud it is not sufficient that a fraud was resorted to, 

 to induce the prosecutor to play (/). 



Where several persons confederated and combined to- 

 gether to play at Skittles, so that the play of one of them 

 should betoken his skill to be much less than it really was, 

 in order that the prosecutor (a looker-on) might be induced 

 to play with him, and thereby lose to him his money : it 

 was held to be an indictable conspiracy {ui). 



So, also, where C. and J. were indicted for conspiring to 

 cheat certain persons out of money by playing at Cards, 

 it appeared that J. went first into an Inn and sat down 

 to drink ; after some time C. made his appearance with a 

 bag of nuts : he took not the slightest notice of J., but 

 in a short time he pulled some cards out of his pocket, and 

 proposed to play for the nuts. Tliere were three Cards, 

 and any person who selected the highest was to have a 

 pennyworth of nuts for a halfpenny. Several persons 

 played, and were allowed to win until all the nuts were 

 gone. C. then proposed that they should play for a 

 shilling ; J. played and lost the first shilling ; he then 

 played again and won. Others played, but eventually C, 

 who had won some money, was discovered cheating in 

 concert with J. ; upon this 0. left the room, but was after- 

 wards apprehended in J.'s company. It was shown that 

 they were travelling and lodging together, notwithstanding 

 they had pretended that they were strangers. The Jury 

 found them both guilty (;?)• 



A Criminal information was refused by the Court of 

 Queen's Bench for a conspiracy to cheat, where it appeared 

 that the persons making the application, as well as the 

 other parties against whom it was made, were a set of 

 Cheats and Gamblers (o). 



By 8 & 9 Yict. c. i09 (p), "all contracts or agreements, 

 whether by parol or in writing, by way of Gaming or 

 wagering," are null and void. 



And where money has been paid to a Stakeholder, in 

 pursuance of a contract by way of Gaming, either party 

 may recover back his share before it has been paid over [q). 

 But in no case can the ichole be recovered by the Winner. 



ij) Reg. V. Bailcu, 4 Cox, C. C. 

 397. 



(;«•) Beg. v. Bailey, 4 Cox, C. C. 

 390. 



(«) Reg. V. Clark and Jervis, be- 

 fore Mr. Justice Erie, Bodmin Spv. 

 Ass. March 23, 1853. 



(rt) Rex Y. Peach, 1 Burr. 548. 



Ip) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18, 

 Appendix. 



(q) Cotton V. Thurland, 5 T. Ri 

 408 ; Smith v. Bickmore, 4 Taunt. 

 474 ; lladchw v. Jackson, 8 B. & C. 

 221 ; Hodson v. Terrell, 1 C. & M. 



