WAGEKS. 409 



Upon this the jury found a verdict for the defendant ; and 

 upon an application for a new trial this direction was held 

 right and the verdict justifiahle by the evidence {e). 



Cooper Y. Neil{f), as understood by the jury, afforded Action by 

 another instance of a real time bargain {g). In that case, i^soJ^enf 

 the defendant employed one B., a broker, to enter into broker. 

 contracts on the Stock Exchange for the purchase of shares. Cooper v. 

 As B. knew, the defendant did not intend to accept the ^'^' 

 shares, but only to receive or pay differences according to 

 the rise or fall in the market price of the shares. B. 

 entered into contracts with jobbers for the purchase of 

 shares in pursuance of the defendant's instructions ; and 

 upon these contracts, according to the rules of the Stock 

 Exchange, became personally liable. He afterwards became 

 insolvent, and the plaintiff, as his trustee, sued upon an 

 imphed contract of indemnity against the claims of the 

 jobbers. At the trial the jury found that the contracts with 

 the jobbers were mere time bargains, and judgment was 

 given for the defendant. This judgment was upheld by 

 the Queen's Bench Division, but a new trial was eventually 

 ordered by the Court of Appeal on the ground that the 

 verdict was unsatisfactory. 



In Byers v. Beattie {h] it was held by the Irish Court of Syers-v. 

 Exchequer Chamber that a contract between stockbrokers •^'"'"'^• 

 and their customer that the brokers should, at the customer's 

 direction, buy shares and sell them, and that the profits 

 should belong to the customer, the brokers being personally 

 liable to him for their payment ; and that the losses should 

 be borne by the customer, the brokers personally, and not 

 by way of indemnity, receiving them ; was a wagering 

 contract within the meaning of the statute ; and that the 

 fact that the brokers were in either case to receive their 

 commission and charges would make no difference. At 

 first sight it is somewhat difficult to reconcile the ruling in 

 this case with the law as laid down in Thacker v. Hardy (i) 

 and other more recent cases of a similar nature, but it 

 should be borne in mind that the judgment turned entirely 

 on the construction of the contract as set out in the plaint, 



(e) Doubts have, however, since been (/) W. N". 1 June, 1878; 27 



expressed as to whether the jury W. E. 139. 



really understood the nature of the {g) See Thacker v. Sardy, i Q. 



evidence before them. See Marten B. D. at p. 689 — per Lindley, J. 

 V. Gibion, 33 L. T., IST. S. at p. 563 (h) 2 Ir. E. C. L. 220 ; 16 W. E. 



— per Bramwell, L.J. ; Thacker v. 279. 



Hardy, 4 Q. B. D. at pp. 695, 696 (i) 4 Q. B. D. 685— C. A. 



— per Brett and Cotton, L.JJ. 



