GAMING. 447 



Uuder 5,& 6 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 2, money paid to the Action by 

 indorsee by the acceptor of a Bill of Exchange, given for ^*^.^fPf%'^^ 

 a Gaming consideration, may be recovered from the person ciiaii°e. 

 in whose favour the Bill was originally accepted, in an 

 action for Money paid by the plaintiff to the use of the 

 defendant at his request {/i). 



And where such a Bill paid by the plaintiff bore Inte- Recovery of 

 rest upon the face of it, it was held by the Court of P^'ii^cipal ^^^ 

 Queen's Bench that the plaintiff was entitled to recover 

 back the Interest paid, as well as the principal money, 

 both being " secured " by the Bill (/). 



In an action on a Bill of Exchange, the defence was, Evidence of 

 that the money for which the Bill was given had been q^^^ ^ 

 lost in a Graming transaction. The person who let the House. 

 Room in which the Grambling took place, was asked a 

 question tending, if answered, to render him liable to be 

 proceeded against under 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, when the 

 Judge interfered. On a motion for a new trial, on the 

 ground of misdirection, the Court of Common Pleas held 

 that the Judge was right, and refused the rule (J). 



In Barnett v. Raveniihaw (h), an order was made by a Summons to 

 Judge at Chambers, on a summons to show cause why a ^arran*t of 

 certain Warrant of Attorney, alleged to have been given Attorney. 

 for a Grambling debt, should not be set aside. 



In 1833, a Post Obit security was given in considera- -A. Post out 

 tion of certain Gaming debts. In 1842, it was assigned Joa!'*^^'^*^ 

 to another pai-ty for valuable consideration, who gave 

 Notice to the trustees of the fund. It was held in 1853, 

 by the Master of the Rolls, that, after the lapse of time, 

 the Deed must be considered to have been given for good 

 consideration (/). 



In the case of The Attorney-General y. HoUingicorth {in), Deedsubsti- 

 it was held, that where, upon an advance of money, a talented wltlf 

 security has been taken, Avhich is tainted with usury (;?) or illegality, 

 other illegality, and afterwards another security is taken 

 for the same advance, not tainted with the illegality, and 

 obviating any necessity for resorting to the former one for 

 the recovery of the money, such substituted security is valid, 

 and the money really advanced can be recovered thereon. 



(70 Gilpin V. Cluttcrbiick, 13 L. {I) Raivkcr y. TFood, IW.B.. 316, 



T. 71. M. R. 



(J) Ibid. 159. (/«) Att.-Gen. v. UolVuHjicorth, 



(/) Fisher V. Ronalds, 22 L. J., 27 L. J., Ex. 102. 



C. JP. 62. {n) The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 90, s. 1, 



(/.•) Barnett v. Ravensltaw, 21 L. repeals all existing laws against 



T. 63. usury. 



