WAGEES. 



899 



beforf 

 eyent. 



the 



thing alleged to be won upon any wager, or which shall 

 have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide 

 the event on which any wager shall have been made ; " 

 but this enactment is not " to apply to any subscription 

 or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, for 

 or toward any plate, prize, or sum of money, to be awarded 

 to the winner or winners of any lawful game, sport, 

 pastime, or exercise " (e). 



However, a party depositing a sum of money with a Deposit 

 stakeholder, by way of loager and not as a stake (/), may recoverable 

 recover his money back, if he give notice to the stake- 

 holder, before the event comes off, that he will break ofi' 

 the bei, and require him to return his money. In a case 

 tried before Chief Justice "Wilde at nisi prim in the Court 

 of Common Pleas, Westminster, Nov. 30th, 1846, it ap- 

 peared that a match in harness had been made between one 

 Isaacs and the plaintiff, and on the event of this race they 

 had made a wager of 20/. a-side, which each party had 

 deposited with the defendant. Previous to the race, the 

 plaintiff gave notice to the defendant that he should " break 

 off" the bet, and he should require back his money. The 

 defendant, however, did not return it, but paid the whole 

 deposit to the other party after he had walked over the 

 course ; an action was then brought to recover the 20/. 

 which had been deposited by the plaintiff. 



At the trial, it was contended on the part of the defen- 

 dant that, under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18, the action was 

 not maintainable. But the learned Judge overruled the 

 objection, and held that the statute was not meant to apply 

 to a case like the present, in which the party depositing the 

 money had given notice to the stakeholder to pay him it 

 back before the time had arrived for the wager to be de- 

 cided. And the jury, on the evidence, found a verdict for 

 the plaintiff (g). 



A rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirec- 

 tion, was afterwards obtained in the Court of Common Pleas, 

 and in discharging the rule Mr. Justice Maule said : 

 "Looking at the whole section (A), critically and gram- 

 matically, I am of opinion that it does not apply to any 

 action like this, where a party seeks to recover his deposit 

 from a stakeholder upon a repudiation of the tmger. 



Decision of 

 the Court of 

 Common 

 Pleas. 



(«) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18. 

 (/) Distinction taken in Connor 

 V. Quiek, cited 2 W. Bla. 708. 

 [g) Varney v. Hickman Nov. 30, 



1846; 5 C. B. 281. 



(A) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, 

 Appendix. 



18. 



