422 GAMING. 



offence. No game is unlawful in itself ; but every game 

 may te rendered so by playing at it for an excessive stake ; 

 for it is the amount played for, and not tbe name or 

 nature of the game which is the essence of it, and which 

 constitutes an offence in the eyes of the law (g).' ' In Jenh 

 V. Ttirpin [h), however, Hawkins, J., said that since the 

 repeal of the statutes of Anne and 18 Geo. 2, c. 34, (as 

 to which, see ante, pp. 360, 363), he did not think that ex- 

 cessive gaming upon any game would in itself render the 

 game unlawful ; " for excessive gaming per s( is not any 

 longer a legal offence. It was not one at common law, 

 and there now exists no statute against it." But a different 

 conclusion was arrived at by A. L. Smith, J., the latter 

 learned judge being of opinion that the dictum of Best, J., 

 iu Sex V. Rogier {i), is still good law, notwithstanding the 

 repeal of the statutes in question {k). 

 Using false " Common players and hazarders with' false dice" are 



indictable (/), and even an infant may be indicted for 

 cheating with false dice (m). 

 ■Winning The winning of exorbitant sums of money has been dis- 



sumt.'*™* couraged both by Courts of Law and Equity. Thus, in the 

 case of Sir Basil Firebrasse v. Hrett in), it appeared that 

 the defendant and Sir William Eussell dined with the 

 plaintiff at his house, and after dinner fell into play. When 

 they began, the defendant and Sir William Russell had not 

 above eight guineas between them, but they won about 

 900/. in ready money, which the defendant brought away 

 with him. The plaintiff, upon losing this, being somewhat 

 inflamed by wine, brought down a bag of guineas, con- 

 taining about 1,500/., which the defendant also won; but 

 as he was leaving the house with it in his possession, the 

 plaintiff and his servants seized upon it, and took it from 

 him. The plaintiff had brought an information against 

 the defendant for playing with false dice, but he was 

 acquitted. The defendant then brought an action of tres- 

 pass against the plaintiff for taking from him in a forcible 

 manner this bag of guineas. The Lord Chancellor granted 

 an injunction to stay these proceedings at law, though the 

 defendant had by answer denied all the circumstances of 



{g) 2 D. & R. at p. 435. (J) 2 Kol. Abr. 78 ; Leeser's case, 



\h) 13 a. B. D. 506, at pp. 524, Cro. Jac. 497. 



526 ; 63 L. J., M. C. 161 ; 50 L. T., Un) Bac. Abr. Infant (H.). 



N- S. 808. (n) Sir Bazil Firebrasse v. Brett, 



(») Note (17), supra. 1 Yei-u. 489 ; SirBazill Firebrass T. 



(k) 13 Q. B. D. at p. 632. Brett, 2 Tern. 70. 



