LORD MARCH V. PIGOT 137 



relative to bets on the turf, when a horse dies before 

 the day of a race. Lord March did not consider the 

 cases analogous ; and, failing to get his due, brought 

 an action in the King's Bench against Mr. Pigot for 

 the amount in dispute. The case came before Lord 

 Mansfield, and the defendant's counsel adopted the 

 aforesaid line of defence — that the bet was annulled 

 by the death of old Mr. Pigot prior to the making of 

 the bet, though the event was unknown at the time. 

 A host of witnesses versed in the rules of Turf and 

 other gaming were heard on both sides. Noble and 

 ignoble authorities were examined and cross-exa- 

 mined. Lord March, accommodated with a seat on 

 the bench, sat quiet, observant, and apparently with- 

 out much fear for the ultimate issue. Lord Mans- 

 field, in addressing the jury, failed to see any 

 similitude between the ' man and beast ' aspect of the 

 wager, which the defendant's counsel set forth, as both 

 parties believed old Mr. Pigot to be in tolerably fair 

 health when the bet was made ; for, had either party 

 known that he had died suddenly on the morning of 

 that day from gout in the head, it was preposterous 

 to imagine that the bet would have been made. On 

 this the jury found for the plaintiff, for whom judg- 

 ment was entered with costs. 



The foregoing shows that Lord March did not 



