414 WAGERS. 



be such a devise, then that the money should he repaid 

 without interest ; it was held not to be a policy on the life 

 of the testator within 14 Geo. 3, c. 48 (b). 

 Pajing a bet. As no uriger can be tried in any Court of Law or 

 Equity, the winner cannot compel payment from the 

 loser (c) ; and therefore if the money be paid, it is in fact 

 giving a gratuity. 

 Giving a Jf a note, bill, or mortgage be taken as a security for 



securi J. money, either won by betting on the sides and hands of per- 



sons gaming, or hiowingly lent for the purpose of such 

 betting, or where such betting is going on, the consideration 

 is illegal under 5 & 6 "VYill. 4, c. 41. But any other 

 security under seal would appear to be good, where the 

 gaming is not illegal [d). 



A bond given to persons to whom the obligor has lost 

 bets on horse-races, which he is unable to pay. In order to 

 prevent them from taking the steps which, under the com- 

 ventional code established among betting men, they are 

 entitled to take, and which would be followed by conse- 

 quences involving the obligor in considerable pecuniary 

 loss, is valid (e). 

 VhereaEote If a note or bill be given in payment of any bet, 

 eift^ ^^'^ except such as has been made on the sides or hands of 

 persons gaming, it is in reality a gift, and its value wUl 

 depend upon circumstances. Thus where a bill had been 

 given gratuitously. Lord Abinger, C.B., in delivering the 

 judgment of the Court of Exchequer, in Easton v. 

 Pratchett (/), said, " If a man give money as a gratuity, 

 it cannot be recovered back, because the act is complete ; 

 yet a man who promises to give money cannot be sued on 

 such promise ; and if so, I do not see how a promise in 

 writing not under seal can have any binding efl'ect. The 

 law makes no difference between such a promise and a 

 verbal one. There is the same distinction as to a bill of 

 exchange. If a party gives to another a negotiable instru- 

 ment on which other parties are liable, the man who makes 

 the gift cannot recover the bill back, and the man to whom 

 the bill is given may recover against the other parties on 



{b) Cook V. Field, 16 Q. B. 471 ; 39 L. J., Ch. 428 ; 22 L. T., 



475. N. S. 208 ; 18 W. E. 512. 



{c) 8 & 9 Yict. c. 109, s. 18. And (/) Fasten v. Fratehett, 1 C. M. 



see per Lord Cairns, L.C., Fi^^le & E. 798; 3 Dowl. 472; 1 Gale, 



T. Siffffs, 2 Ex. D. 422 ; 46 L. J., 83 ; and see the same case in error, 



Ex. 721 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 27. 2 C. M. & E. r,42 ; 4 Dowl. 549 ; 



(d) See Gaming, post. Chap. IV. 1 Gale, 250 ; 6 C. & P. 736. 



(e) Suhi V. Yeherton, L. E. 9 Eq. 



