WAGERS. 415 



the bill ; but it is a very different question wbether tbo 

 giver binds himself by the indorsement so as to make him- 

 self liable thereupon to the person to whom he gives it. 

 There is no decision that he does, and there is a strong 

 authority the other way ; and the prevailing opinion in the 

 profession is, that a parol promise of a gift, whether verbal 

 or in writing, will not be binding." 



A race-course is a mart where stolen or lost notes may Taking a 

 be readily disposed of, and therefore a party should always ^*°^'''^ ^'^^^ 

 use due caution in taking a bank note from a stranger, jnent. 

 either in payment of a bet, or in change out of payment 

 for bets lost, and the larger the amount of the note the 

 greater the care required. 



A bond fide holder of a stopped note, or other negotiable Taking 

 security, that is to say, a person who has given value for it, ?topP^'l ""^ 

 and who has had no notice at the time that the party from ^ ^ ' 

 whom he takes it has no title, is entitled to recover upon it, 

 even though he may at the time have had the means of 

 knowledge of that fact, of which means he neglected to avail 

 himself. Thus, where a money-changer at Paris, twelve 

 months after he had received notice of a robbery of bank- 

 notes at Liverpool, took one of the stolen notes (for 500/.) 

 at Paris, giving cash for it, less the current rate of ex- 

 change, from a stranger, whom he merely required to pro- 

 duce his passport, and write his name on the back of the 

 note, it was held that the circumstance of his forgetting or 

 omitting to look for the notice was no evidence of mala 

 fides (g). 



In Goodman v. Harvey (h), the Court of Queen's Bench whatinvali- 

 held that there must be actual mala fides to invalidate the j^*^*^^ *}^^ 

 right of the holder of a bill or bank note, received from a ^°„^l^ ^ 

 person having no title to it. And also that the existence 

 even of gross negligence was unimportant, except so far as 

 it might be evidence of mala fides {h) . 



This decision was confirmed by the case of JJther v. MaU fides 

 Rich (i), where the Court of Queen's Bench held that mala ^"f^^y 

 fides in the holder of a negotiable security, if relied on, proved. 

 must be distinctly alleged. And that the only proper 

 way of implicating him in an alleged fraud, is by averring 

 that he had notice of it, and that an allegation that he 



(g) Raphael v. Bank of England, 1882, ss. 29, 30, 90. 



17 C. B. 161. (») Uther y. Rich, 10 A. & E. 



ih) Goodman Y.Sarvei/,i A. &'E. 784. And see Arboin -v. Anderson, 



870. See also Bills of Exchange Act, 1 Q. B. 498. 



