404 



WAGEES. 



Trotting 

 against time. 



Agreement 

 with tipster. 



Walking 

 match. 



measurement and demonstration to the satisfaction of th.e 

 defendant, "W. would receive the two sums deposited ; but 

 if W. failed in doing this, the two sums were to be paid to 

 the plaintiff — it was held that the agreement was a wager, 

 and consequently null and void within the statute {x). 



So where H. and the plaintiff deposited bOl. each with 

 the defendant and entered into a written agreement that the 

 100/. should be paid to H. if his horse trotted eighteen miles 

 in an hour, and if not then to the plaintiff ; it was held that 

 the transaction was simply a wager, and did not come within 

 the proviso in 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18, as to contributions 

 to a prize or sum of money to be awarded to the winner of 

 any lawful game, sport, pastime or exercise (y). 



And a wager under the disguise of a contract to pay a 

 reward for information will not evade the Act. In Higgin- 

 son V. Simpson {z), the plaintiff was a tipster, i.e. gave in- 

 formation as to the probable winners of horse races. Upon 

 his giving the name of a horse to the defendant as the pro- 

 bable winner of a certain race, it was agreed between them 

 that the plaintiff should have 21. on the horse at 25 to 1, 

 that is to say, that if the defendant backed the horse and 

 won, the plaintiff should have 50/. out of his winnings, hut 

 if the horse lost the plaintiff should pay the defendant 21. 

 The defendant did back the horse and it won, and the 

 plaintiff thereupon claimed 50/. out of the defendant's 

 winnings ; and it was held that the agreement was void, 

 and that the 50/. could not be recovered. 



It was laid down in the case of Batty v. Marriott {a), 

 that though there be but two subscribers to a plate, prize 

 or sum of money to be awarded to the winner of a lawful 

 game, and those two subscribers the competitors themselves, 

 yet it is not less a contribution within the exception in the 

 statute, (8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18,) if the agreement be, that 

 the whole sum subscribed shall be paid over to the winner, 

 and if it be a bona fide subscription or contribution on the 

 part of those two persons. But what the court had in their 

 minds in that case was the question whether the game was 

 a lawful or unlawful game, and having come to the conclu- 

 sion that it was a lawful game, they were of opinion that 



(x) Sampdmy. Walsh, 1 Q. B. D. 

 18y ; 45 L. J., Q. B. 238 ; 33 L. T., 

 N. S. 852 ; 24 "W. E. 607. 



[y) Batson v. Xewman, 1 C. P. D. 

 573; 25 W. R. 85. AMisen Brogdm 

 ■V. Marriott, 3 Eing. N. C. 88; 

 Coombs T. Dibble, L. E., 1 Ex. 248 ; 



36 L. J., Ex. 167; 14 L. T., N. S. 

 415. 



H 2 C. P. D. 76; 46 L. J., 

 C. P. 192; 36 L. T., N. S. 17: 

 25 W. R. 303. 



{a) 5 C. B. 832. 



