WAGEES. 417 



transaction was void under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18, and 

 that the cheque was an illegal security under 6 & 6 Will. 4, 

 c. 41. But this plea was held bad, as the agreement was 

 not one by way of gaming and wagering within the meaning 

 of the former statute, neither was the consideration for the 

 cheque illegal under the latter ; Pollock, B., remarking 

 that the statutes relied on applied only to contracts and 

 securities between the parties to the wager. 



So where A. and B. had entered into an agreement of 

 partnership, under which they were to share the profits 

 upon bets to be made by B. upon horse-races, and A. had 

 advanced money for the purposes of the partnership, it 

 was held that, as B. had received money on account of A., 

 and the betting part of the transaction was purely collateral, 

 A. was entitled to have an account taken of what was due 

 to him under the agreement (o). 



Independently of any question of partnership, a princi- a betting 

 pal who employs an agent for a commission to make bets agent. 

 for him is entitled to recover from such agent any sums 

 received by him on account of such bets, as the contract 

 between the parties is not a contract by way of gaming and 

 wagering within the meaning of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, 

 s. 18 (^j). In actions against agents for money received 

 under such circumstances the defence of gaming and wager- 

 ing is frequently raised, it being contended that the bet 

 was made by the plaintiff with the defendant, and not by 

 the defendant with a third person as agent for the plaintiff. 

 The defendant, will, however, be estopped from denying 

 that he acted as the plaintiff's agent in the transaction if it be 

 proved that the contract between the parties was ostensibly 

 one of agency, and that he from time to time rendered 

 accounts to the plaintiff, showing bets to have been made, 

 and money received or paid on his behalf (i?). In such 

 cases the plaintiff, must, of course, prove the agreement 

 between himself and the agent, that the latter made the 

 bets on his behalf, and that he received the winnings. But 

 the plaintiff need not, in every case, in order to show that 

 the bets were made as agent and not principal, prove with 



(o) Barmy v. Sart, [1894] "W. N. L T., IST. S. 600 ; 16 W. E. 910. 

 72. (?) Moore v. Feachey, 7 Times 



(jo) Bridger v. Savage, 15 Q. B. L. R. 748 — Charles, J. See also 



D. 363; 54 L. J., Q. B. 464; 53 Pottery. Codrington, 9 Times L. E. 



L. T.,N. S. 129; 33 "W. E. 891— 54, where the facts proved were 



C'. A., overruling Beyer v. Adams, held insufficient to constitute an 



•26 L. J., Ch. 841. See also Savage estoppel. 

 ». Madder, 36 L. J., Ex. 178; 16 



O. E E 



