362 impounding; injuries on highways, etc. 



a Nebraska case it is said: "The rule at the common law 

 was that all wagering contracts that were contrary to good 

 morals or public policy were illegal and void. The courts of 

 England at an early day held that betting on a horse-race 

 was not opposed to good morals. The courts of that country 

 reluctantly followed this early precedent until the common 

 law interpretation of wagering contracts was changed by the 

 statutes of 8 and 9 Victoria which made all contracts of wager 

 void. Is betting on the result of a race contrary to good 

 morals? We are not bound by the decision of the courts 

 of England in determining that question. Whether a thing 

 in the eyes of the law is moral or immoral may depend 

 largely upon when and where it occurred. An act may be 

 upheld as moral in one country and be regarded as immoral in 

 another. A wager contract might have been sustained a 

 hundred years ago as being in conformity with good morals 

 and be condemned to-day as immoral. In this country bet- 

 ting on a race is now generally regarded as against sound mor- 

 als. As a general rule the courts of this country, in the more 

 recent decisions, have refused to enforce all wagering con- 

 tracts, even though they are not declared illegal by statute. 

 Such contracts are certainly against good morals, a detriment 

 to society, and under the principles of the common law are 

 illegal and void.""^ 



A horse-race is a "game" in the sense of a statute against 

 gaming.2^» So it is gaming to bet on a cock-fight,^" or a 



V. Huflfman, 30 Ark. 428; Bledsoe v. Thompson, 6 Rich. L. (S. C.) 44; 

 Bollinger v. Com. (Ky.), 35 S. W. Rep. 553. 



"' Deaver v. Bennett, 29 Neb. 812. 



""Goodburn v. Marley, Strange 1159; Blaxton v. Pye, 2 Wils. 309; 

 Clayton v. Jennings, 2 W. Bl. 706; Stone v. Clay, 18 U. S. App. 622; 

 Swigart V. Peo., 154 III. 284; Ellis v. Beale, 18 Me. 337. 



Telegraphic instruments, blackboards, etc., for receiving or recordings 

 news of horse races are "apparatus for the purpose of registering bets": 

 Com. V. Healey, 157 Mass. 455; Com. v. Clancy, 154 id. 128. 



'" Bagley v. State, i Humph. (Tenn.) 486; Johnson v. State, 4 Sneed 

 (Tenn.) 614; Com. v. Tilton, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 232? Storey v. Brennan, 

 IS N. Y. 524; Squires v. Whisken, 3 Camp. 140; Rex v. Howel, 3 Keb. 465. 



