446 GAMlX(i. 



singular anomaly, that the Winner of a Race sliould be en- 

 titled to recover the Stakes, and yet that by the combined 

 operation of 9 Anne, c. 14, and 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41, if a 

 Promissory Note or other Security were given for the 

 amount, he would be precluded from availing himself of 

 it, by reason of the illegality of the consideration." 

 ^ The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41, is " An Act to amend the Law 

 relating to Securities given for Considerations arising out 

 of Graming, usurious and certain other illegal Transac- 

 tions." It is founded on 16 Car. 2, c. 7, and 9 Anne, c. 14, 

 both of which are Acts to prevent excessive Graming ; and 

 the notion upon which the sections with regard to secu- 

 rities in writing were probably framed appears to have 

 been, that there would be less danger of excessive and 

 immoderate Gaming, if people w^ere kept as much as pos- 

 sible to playing for ready money. The Legislature there- 

 fore having encouraged cash or money transactions, it is 

 quite conceivable that a contract should be good so long 

 as a money payment was contemplated, but become void 

 between the parties immediately on secmity being given. 

 This construction of the statute seems much more reason- 

 iable, than that all contracts within 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41, 

 in connection with 9 Anne, c. 14, before any security is 

 "given, should be void between the actual parties. 

 Action To an action against the acceptor of a Bill of Exchange, 



cf tor ofBill drawn by the plaintiff, the defendant pleaded that a Bet 

 of Exchange, was lost by the defendant to A. B., and that the said Bill 

 of Exchange was, at the request of A. B., given and ac- 

 cepted by the defendant in consideration of the said Bet, 

 and to secure payment thereof, contrary to the Statute, 

 &c., and that there never was any other consideration for 

 the acceptance of the said Bill ; and that the plaintiif at 

 the time when he drew, and the defendant accepted, the 

 same, had Notice of the premises. The evidence was, 

 that the defendant had accepted a prior Bill drawn by the 

 plaintiff in consideration of the Bet lost to A. B., and that 

 the Bill sued upon was given in renewal of that prior Bill. 

 The Jury found that the Bill declared uj)on was given in 

 consideration of the Bet, and that the plaintiif had Notice 

 of it. And the Court of Queen's Bench held that the 

 plea was good, and was an answer to the action under 

 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 41 {(j). 



((/) Hai/v. Ayl'uig, 20 L. J., Q. B. 171; and see BoxUon v. Ctghlan, 

 \ Bhio'. N. C. 640. 



