1892. 



418 WAGERS. 



whom the bookmaker made the bets in fact. Where the 

 latter by his course of business holds himself out as a com- 

 mission agent, the plaintiff has a, prima facie right to recover 

 the bets from him (r). The principal cannot maintain an 

 action against the agent for damages for breach of con- 

 tract in failing to make a bet pursuant to the principal's 

 instructions, as the bet being irrecoverable at law the 

 principal can suffer no loss from the failure of his agent to 

 make it (s). 

 Sead V. In Read v. Anderson (f) it was held by the Court of 



Anderson. Appeal (?«), affirming the decision of Hawkins, J. (x), that 

 the employment of a turf commission agent, being a 

 jnember of Tattersall's, to make a bet in his own name on 

 behalf of his principal implied an authority to pay the bet 

 if lost, and on the making of the bet that authority became 

 irrevocable ; the result being that an agent who had paid 

 money under such circumstances could maintain an action 

 against the principal for its recovery. 

 Gaming Act, But this ruling has been superseded by the Gaming Act, 



1892 (y), which enacts that, "any promise, express or 

 implied, to pay any person any sum of money paid by him 

 under or in respect of any contract or agreement rendered 

 null and void by the Act of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, or to pay 

 uny sum of money by way of commission, fee, reward, or 

 (itherwise in respect of any such contract, or of any services 

 in relation thereto or in connexion therewith, shall be null 

 and void, and no action shall be brought or maintained to 

 recover any such sum of money." 



This Act is not retrospective (z). l!^either does it affect 

 the right of a principal to recover from his agent the 

 amount of bets won and received by him (a). But money 

 paid by one person for another at his request to persons to 

 whom the latter has lost bets is money paid " in respect " of 

 a gaming contract within the meaning of the Act, even 

 though the former was no party to the betting; and cannot, 

 therefore, be recovered from the party at whose request it 

 was paid (i). 



(r) Grimerd T. WiUshire, 10 (x) 10 Q. B. D. 100 



Times L. R. nor., 506— Charles, J. (y) .55 Vict. u. 9, s. 1. 



(j) Cohen v. KiltcU, 22 Q. B. D. (2) Enight v. Lee, [18931 1 Q B. 



080 ; 58 L. J., U. B. 241 ; 60 L. T. 41 ; 62 L. J., Q. B. 28 • 41 W li 



;i:i2 ; 37 W. E. 400. 125. 



(<) 13 Q. B. D. 779; 53 L. J., (a) DeMattosY. Benjamin, 10 K. 



Q. B. 532 ; 51 L. T., N. S. 55 ; 32 103 ; 63 L. J., Q, E 248 • 70 L T 



W. E. 950. N. S. 560 ; 42 W. E. 284. ' 



[u] Bowen and Fry, L.J" J., Brett, [b) Tatam v. Uccee, [18931 1 



M.E., dissenting. Q. B. 44; 62 L. J., Q. B. 30; 



