416 



WAGERS. 



Money 

 borrowed to 

 pay bets. 



A betting 

 partner. 



was not a hon& fide holder, is not equivalent to an aver- 

 ment of such notice. 



Formerly money borrowed for the express purpose of 

 settling losses on a race to the amount of 10/. or upwards 

 could not be recovered by the lender, although he bore no 

 part in the transaction {It). This was so held on the 

 ground of illegality ; but as that no longer exists, it would 

 appear that a person borrowing money for the purpose of 

 paying his betting losses on a race, whatever their amount 

 may be, is as completely indebted to the lender as if he 

 had borrowed it for any other purpose whatsoever. For 

 in a case where an I. 0. U. afforded prima facie evidence 

 of a debt, and an injunction was sought to restrain the 

 party from suing on it, on the ground that a great part 

 of the consideration was money lent for gambling pur- 

 poses ; on its appearing that the transaction had taken 

 place in a foreign country, where such games were not illegal, 

 the injunction was refused (/). 



The 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18, does not make gaming 

 contracts illegal, but null and void, and therefore it would 

 be contrary to public morality to lay down that a party 

 who has received money lost in a icager should by pleading 

 this statute escape paying over the fair share to his 

 partner («j). Where, therefore, the plaintiff and A. had 

 jointly made bets on a horse-race, and A. had received the 

 winnings, and given the plaintiff a bill accepted by the 

 defendant, who was no party to the betting, for his share ; 

 it was held that the plaintiff was not precluded by the 

 statute from suing the defendant on the bill {m). 



Beeston v. Beeston («) was a case of a very similar nature 

 to that last cited. The plaintiff had paid money to the 

 defendant to be employed by the latter, with certain money 

 of his own in betting on horse-races, the plaintiff to receive 

 a certain proportion of the winnings. The defendant so 

 employed the money and won, giving the plaintiff a cheque 

 for his share of the winnings. The cheque having been 

 dishonoured, the plaintiff brought his action on it. The 

 defendant set up a plea of gaming, contending that the 



(/t) M'Kinnell v. Robinson, 3 M. 

 & AV. 434 ; Caiman v. Bryee, 3 B. & 

 Aid. 179; 22 E. E. 342. 



(I) Quarrier v. Colsten, 1 Turn. & 

 Ph. 147. And see Fylce, Ex parte, 

 Lister, In re, 8 Ch. D. 754 ; 47 

 L. J., Bk. 100; 38 L. T., N. S. 



923 ; 26 W. E. 806— C. A. 



()«) Johnson V. Lansley, 12 C. B. 

 468. 



{n) 1 Ex. D. 13 ; 45 L. J., Ex. 

 230; 33L. T.,N. S. 700 ; 24W.E. 

 96. 



