442 GAMING. 



(37 & 38 Viet. c. 49), s. 30, that lie was playing Cards for 

 money on tlie Licensed Premises (g). If a licensed person 

 permits on the Licensed Premises a Grame to be played, in 

 which each person contributes a certain sum towards the 

 purchase of a prize to be given to the winner, he is properly 

 convicted of unlawfully suffering Graming to be carried on 

 on his licensed premises contrary to s. 17 of the 35 & 36 Vict. 

 c. 94 (A). But in order to support a conviction under 

 s. 17 it is necessary to give some evidence of actual or con- 

 structive knowledge on the part of the person charged that 

 Graming was carried on on his premises (/) . The offence 

 may, however, be committed by connivance, either on the 

 part of the principal or the person in charge {j ) . 

 Where money But not if there is no money staked. Therefore a con- 

 is not staked, yiction was held to be bad which stated that the keeper of 

 a Public House licensed under 9 Greo. 4, c. 61, had been 

 " Gruilty of an oifence against the tenor of his Licence, that 

 is to say, that he knowingly suffered a certain unlawful 

 Game, to wit, the Game of Dominoes, to be played in his 

 house ; " because the Game of Dominoes is not itself un- 

 lawful, and playing at Dominoes does not necessarily 

 amount to " Gaming" within the meaning of the Licence {k). 

 Money lent ' Moucy lent f or the purpose of Gaming would appear to 

 for Gaming, "be now recoverable, unless it is lent where the Gaming is 

 unlawful ; as, for instance, by a licensed Publican to game 

 on his own premises (/) ; or by any party to play Hazard, 

 &c. And the principle is, that the repayment of money 

 lent for the express purpose of accomplishing an illegal 

 act cannot be enforced (w) . 

 Money lent Thus in a case in which an action was brought to recover 



for the Stakes ^^^ g^^^^ of money which was lent for the express purpose of 

 fio-ht. ^^^ " making up to the required sum the stakes to be deposited 

 by one of the parties to a Prize-fight, Mr. Justice Shee 

 nonsuited the plaintiff, on the ground that it was money 

 deposited by the plaintiff for an imlawful purpose (ii). 

 Test where The Test whether a demand connected with an illegal 



the transac- transaction is capable of beino' enforced at law, is, 



tion IS illegal. '- ^ 



(ff) Cooper V. Osborne, 35 L. T., L. T., N. S. 779. 



N.'S. 347. (a-) lirff. V. As/>(oii, 22 L. J., M. 



(//) JBew V. Harstoii, L. E,., 3 Q. C. 1, Q. B. 



B. D. 454 ; 39 L. T., N. S. 233 ; (/) Foot y. Baker, 5 M. & G. 339 ; 



26 W. U. 915. and see ante, p. 427. 



{i) Bosley v. Darics, L. R., 1 Q. (w) M' luunellY. Robinson, Zlsl.k 



B. D. 84; 45 L. J., M. C. 27; W. 441. See ante, p. 422. 



33L. T.,N. S. 528; 24W. R. 140. [n] Walker v. Langham, Bail 



(;■) Redgate\.Haynes, L. R., 1 Q. Court, Feb. 9, 1865. 

 B. D. 89; 45 L. J., M. C. 65; 33 



