WAGERS. 407 



defend under Order XIV. r. 1 ; the Court being of opinion 

 that as the plaintiff knew that the only consideration for 

 the cheque was money lost in bets the matter came within 

 the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18, and that in any case the 

 plaintiff was entitled to raise this point by way of 

 defence (/i/i;). Having regard, however, to the decisions in 

 Fitch V. Jones (l), and Lilley v. Rankin {m), it is appre- 

 hended that the proper defence in this case would have 

 been the illegality of the consideration under 5 & 6 Will. 4, 

 c. 41, as to which see post, Chapter IV. 



The Act for the suppression of betting houses («), which The Act for 

 is treated of in the chapter on Betting Houses and Graming tlie suppression 

 Houses (o), has made various important provisions with hous^es.™^ 

 respect to betting, and with respect to receiving money, 

 &c., as the consideration for any assurances, &c., to pay 

 money, &c. ( p) — -or as a deposit on any bet, on condition 

 of paying any money, &c. — "on the happening of any 

 event or contingency of or relating to a horse race, or any 

 other race, or any fight, game, sport, or exercise " {q). 



The Stock Jobbing Act (7 Geo. 2, c. 8), invalidated _aU J^\\f^''"=^;^, 

 time bargains in the Public Funds (r), but time bargains 

 relating to shares (s), or in foreign funds (?!), were held not 

 to be void either under the Act or at common law. The 

 Act was repealed in 1860 by the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 28. 



Where each party means to break the contract, but to Gaming on 

 give the other a remedy against him for the difference of Exchange, 

 price, according as the market may rise or fall, it is a 

 gambling transaction, being a mere bet upon the future 

 price, and the contract is therefore void under 8 & 9 Vict. 

 c. 109 (m). 



Thus in a time bargain in shares, if it is understood by ^*',™.^ *™'' 

 both parties that the shares are never to be delivered into ^° 

 the hands of the purchaser, it is nothing more than a wager 

 made between the parties upon the difference of the price 

 at the time that the supposed purchase is made, and the 

 price on the settlement day. If the shares rise one party 

 is to receive, and if they fall he is to be at a loss. 



[Tck] Bogdman T. O'Neil, 2 Times (?■) Oakley r. Rigby, 3 Scott, 194. 



L. E. 169. (s) Hewitt v. Price, 4 M. & G. 



'(l) Note {g), supra. 335 ; Williams v. Trye, 23 L. J., 



Vm) Note [k), supra. Ch. 860. 



(«) 16 &17 Vict. c. 119, Appendix. (t) Welh v. Porter, 3 Scott, 141. 



(o) See Betting Houses and Gam- {«) Grizewood v. BUne, 11 C. B. 



ino- Houses, post, Chap. V. 640. And see Barry v. Croskey, 2 



{p) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, s. 1, J. &H. 1; Cooper \. Neil, 21 W .'S.. 



Appendix. 169 ; Heiman v. Hardie, 12 Ct. of S. 



[q) Ibid. ss. 3, 5. Gas., 4th Series, 406. 



