420 WAGERS. 



held that as it appeared that the latter parted with his 

 money with the intention that in the event of the horse win- 

 ning it should be repaid, while the former obtained possession 

 of the money fraudulently, never intending to repay it in 

 any event, there was no contract by which the property in 

 the money could pass, and therefore there was evidence of 

 larceny by a trick (i). 



(J) S. V. Buchnastet; 20 0, B. D.182; 57 L. J., M. C. 23. 



