412 



WAGEES. 



Transactions 

 with outside 

 brokers. 



Money lent 

 for speculation. 



Real time bargains are of more frequent occurrence in 

 transactions with outside brokers, than they are with autho- 

 rized brokers on the Stock Exchange. The advertisements 

 or circulars by which outside brokers seek to attract the 

 public to deal with them sometimes stipulate that all 

 bargains shall be settled by payment of differences, and 

 there can be no doubt about the wagering nature of a con- 

 tract entered into upon such a basis, as it is nothing more 

 than a bet upon the future price of the stock or shares 

 dealt with [p), though sometimes it is sought to veil the 

 true nature of the transaction by the use of so-called forms 

 of application {q). But where a written contract was 

 entered into by an outside jobber with his customer, that 

 bona fide purchases and sales of stocks and shares should 

 be made between them ; and no subsequent bargain was 

 in fact come to between them that the purchases and sales 

 should not be carried out, and merely the differences paid, 

 but it was contemplated that this might be so ; and in the 

 actual dealing no delivery of stock took place, although 

 the jobber did offer to deliver some ; it was held that 

 although the parties might have contemplated that as a 

 whole, there would be a mere payment of differences 

 between them, yet, inasmuch as the actual contracts entered 

 into involved liability for the actual delivery of the stock 

 dealt with, they were not wagering contracts within the 

 meaning of the statute (r). 



In Fuller v. Ferryman (s), the plaintiff sought to recover 

 two sums of 50/. each. The defendant was an outside broker 

 and as such had acted for the plaintiff. The defendant told 

 the plaintiff that he was going to speculate in certain stock, 

 and said that if the plaintiff would advance him two sums 

 of 501. he would get the benefit of the speculation if it was 

 successful, and if not the defendant would bear the loss and 

 repay the plaintiff the 100/. The plaintiff advanced the 

 money, but the speculation turned out unsuccessful, and the 

 defendant refused to repay the 100/. on the ground that the 

 speculation was a gambling transaction and his promise to 

 repay, therefore, void under the Gaming Act, 1892, as to 



this decision, however, the Stock 

 Exchange rule has been amended, 

 and is now prohibitive. See E. (54, 

 Stutfield's Rules and Usages of the 

 Stock Exchange, 2nd ed. at p. 39. 



(p) Reggio v. Steven, 4 Times 

 L. E. 326. 



(?) Eghton v. Sarclay, 11 Times 



L. E. 174. 



(r) Universal Stock Exchange v. 

 -Sirosiis, 66L.T.,N. S.612; 40'W.E. 

 494 — Eomer, J. See also Shaw v. 

 Caledonian Rail. Co., 17 Ct. of S. Cas. 

 4th Series, 466; Lovienfeldy. Sowat, 

 19 Ct. of S. Cas., 4th Series, 128. 



(s) 11 Times L. E. 350— C. A. 



