364 IMPOUNDING ; INJURIES ON HIGHWAYS, ETC. 



sent of both parties given after the event, be shielded from 

 Habihty by paying the stakes to the winner.^*'^ Where two 

 persons contribute money to be used by one of them for the 

 purpose of betting on a horse-race, the other cannot recover 

 any of the money so advanced. The holder of the money is 

 not a stakeholder but a partner.^^^ In England, the business 

 of a bookmaker on the turf not being illegal if carried on ac- 

 cording to the provisions of the Betting Act, 1853, a partner, 

 with bona fide intentions and ignorant of any breach of the 

 law, is entitled to an account and to payment of his share of 

 the profits.^*" 



Racing for a purse or prize has been generally held not to 

 be illegal as it lacks the element of chance of gain or risk of 

 loss which characterizes the wager agreement. ^^"^ But such 

 racing was held illegal where the statute prohibited the racing 

 of horses "for any bet . or for any reward to be given to 

 the owner." ^^^ And there are cases where the distinction be- 

 tween a race for a reward and one for a wager does not seem 

 to be observed.^^^ Where the plaintiff and defendant agreed 

 to ride a race each on his own horse, both the horses ridden 

 to become the property of the winner, it was held that the 

 horse could not be regarded as a "contribution toward a 

 prize," within the meaning of a statutory proviso, and that the 



"" Kensler v. Jennings (N. J.), 41 Atl. Rep. 918; Ruckman v. Pitcher, 

 I N. Y. 392, 20 id. 9; Storey v. Brennan, 15 id. 524. 



'" Shaffner v. Pinchback, 133 III. 410. 



"° Thwaites z/. Coiilthwaite, [1896] i Ch. 496. 



'""Misner v. Knapp, 13 Oreg. 135; Delier v. Plymouth Co. Agricul. 

 Soc, 57 la. 481; Porter v. Day, 71 Wis. 296; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 

 532; Alvord V. Smith, 63 Ind. 58; Ballard v. Brown, 67 Vt. 586; Re Dwyer, 

 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 204; Peo. v. Fallon, 152 N. Y. 12; Peo. v. Van De Carr, 

 150 id. 439- 



And an agreement between the owners to pool and divide the premiums 

 is valid: Hankins v. Ottinger, 115 Cal. 454. 



°" Bronson Agricul. & Breeders' Assn. ■;■. Ramsdell, 24 Mich. 441. See 

 Harris v. White, supra. 



"" See Comly v. Hillegass, 94 Pa. St. 132; Dudley v. Flushing Jockey 

 Club, 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 58. 



