RACING AND BETTING. 363 



dog-fight.^'^® On the other hand horse-racing has been held 

 not to be a "gambling device," ^''^ nor a "game of hazard or 

 skill," ^*" nor a "game of chance." ^^^ Nor is a dog-race a 

 "game of chance." ^^* And game-cocks are not "implements 

 of gaming" in the sense of a statute authorizing the destruc- 

 tion of such implements. ^^* 



Where the betting has been held illegal, the selling of pools 

 on the race is, of course, forbidden.^®* In all such cases the 

 authority of the stakeholder may be revoked and the money 

 recovered from him by either party. ^^^ "The stakeholder 

 is not to be held in pari delicto with the persons who are the 

 parties to the wagering contract. He does not share in 

 their guilt. That portion of the transaction with which he is 

 connected is innocent; or, at most, it is not in violation of 

 any statute and, if in contravention of public policy or mor- 

 ality at all, it is so slightly so- that, in a suit like this, the rule 

 that the law will leave all who share in the guilt of an illegal 

 or immoral transaction where it finds them, has no applica- 

 tion." ^^^ But the stakeholder cannot, even with the con- 



"' Egerton v. Furzeman, i C. & P. 613. See Grace v. McElroy, i Allen 

 (Mass.) 563. 



■" State V. Lemon, 46 Mo. 375. 



™° State V. Rorie, 23 Ark. 726. But it was held to be a "hazard" in the 

 statutory sense, in Cheek v. Com., 100 Ky. i. 



"^ Harless v. Adams, i Morr. (la.) 169. 

 ' '"' Hirst V. Molesbury, L. R. 6 Q. B. 130. 



^"^ Coolidge V. Choate, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 79. 



'^Parker v. Mosher, 60 N. H. 73; Peo. v. Weithoff, 51 Mich. 203, 93 

 id. 631; McBride v. State, 39 Fla. 442. 



Pool-selling was held not to be a "lottery," in the sense of the Constitu- 

 tion, in Reilly v. Gray, 77 Hun (N. Y.) 402. Contra: Irving v. Britton, 

 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 201. 



Bookmaking on a horse race was held to be a game of chance or 

 gambling device or contrivance, and a bookmaker's booth a place for 

 gaming, in Miller v. U. S., 6 App. D. C. 6. 



'^^ Cleveland v. Wolflf, 7 Kan. 184; Corson v. Neatheny, 9 Colo. 212; 

 Deaver v. Bennett, 29 Neb. 812; Wilkinson v. Tousley, 16 Minn. 299; 

 Bledsoe v. Thompson, 6 Rich. L. (S. C.) 44; Peo. v. Fallon, 152 N. Y. i. 



'" Cleveland v. Wolff, supra. A clerk attending his employer and re- 

 cording his bets is not guilty of book-making: Peo. v. Fallon, supra. 



