RACING AND BETTING. 369' 



Where a contract as to a horse-race is silent as to the con- 

 sequences of a failure to start when the word is given, parol 

 evidence of custom is admissible by way of explanation. The 

 presumption is, where the contract is silent, that the parties 

 had in view the rules of the turf, and evidence of these rules 

 does not vary the contract but explains its meaning.^^*" 

 Where the judges are unable to agree as to the fairness of 

 the start or as to which horse won, the race should be con- 

 sidered a draw, entitling those betting thereon to withdraw 

 their bets.^^'' 



One of two persons engaged in trotting their horses 

 against each other may maintain an action against the other 

 for wilfully running him down, although they were trotting: 

 for money, contrary to law.*** And promissory notes giveni 

 for an interest in race-horses are not invalidated in the hands, 

 of an innocent holder because the parties contemplated en- 

 tering into a partnership for racing horses for money, con- 

 trary to statute.**' But where three persons agreed to buy 

 a horse, race it against the horse of another and divide the 

 proceeds, deceiving the owner of the other horse as to the 

 qualities of their horse it was held that no action for an ac- 

 counting lay, the agreement being dishonest and the ar- 

 rangement about the division of proceeds not being a subse- 

 quent collateral agreement founded on a new considera- 

 tion.**" And where a check was given by the defendant in 

 payment of bets upon horse-races lost by him, and endorsed 

 by the payee to the plaintiff for value, with notice of the con- 

 sideration for which it was given, it was held that the plaintiff 

 could not maintain an action upon the check as it must be 

 deemed to have been given for an illegal consideration.*** 



™ Walker v. Armstrong, S4 Tex. 609. 



'"Shain v. Searcy, 20 Tex. 122; Jackson v. Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.)^ 

 39 S. W. Rep. 315. 

 "' Welch V. Wesson, 6 Gray (Mass.) 505. 

 ™ Biegler v. Merch. Loan & Trust Co., 164 111. I97- 

 ™ Morrison v. Bennett, 20 Mont. 560. ' 



''• Woolf V. Hamilton, [1898] 2 Q. B. 337- 

 24 



