GAMING. 



425 



&o., as distinguished from the case where it is uncertain 

 what sum may be won or lost until the game has concluded. 

 It would appear, therefore, that so long as the money won 

 is a stake and not a bet, and the game, &c. is lawful, and 

 perhaps the sum ascertained before the commencement of 

 such game, &c., the winner may maintain an action against 

 a loser for his subscription or contribution to the stake (a). 



The following are lawful games, sports, pastimes, or Lawful 

 exercises : — horse races (b), steeple chases (c), trotting °'^"'^' ^''■ 

 matches (d), coursing matches (e), foot races (/), boat 

 races (^), regattas (/«), rowing matches (A), golf, wrestling 

 matches (j), cricket (/c), tennis, fives, rackets, bowls (/), 

 skittles (m), quoits, curling, putting stone, football («), and 

 presumably, every bond fide variety, or siiiii/ar description 

 of such games, &c. The winner therefore, in any of these, 

 may recover from the loser, or each of the losers, his sub- 

 scription or contribution to the stake (o). 



The following lawful games when played for money (p) Lawful 

 ma.j, prima, facie, be called lawful gaming ox play : — Whist g^™"^S "■■ 

 and other lawful games at cards, backgammon (g), bil- 

 liards (r), bagatelle (r), chess (s), drafts (s), dominoes (s), &c. 



By the 72nd section of the Highway Act (if) a penalty "Game" 

 is imposed upon any person " who shall play at football or ^t'l[ *'^*' j^^cj 

 any other game on any part of the highway, to the annoy- ° 

 ance of any passenger or passengers." Therefore where a 

 number of persons assembled together in a public highway 



(a) The distinction between a 

 stake and a bet was taken in Connor 

 V. Quick, cited 2 W. Bla. 708. See 

 also Batty v. Marriott, 5 C. B. 818 ; 

 SiggU v. Eiggs, 2 Ex. D. 422 ; 46 

 L. J., Ex. 721; 37 L. T.,]Sr. S. 27; 

 2.5 W. E. 777— C. A., ante, pp. 376, 

 377. 



(A) See the Law as to Eacing, 

 ante, Part III., Chap. II. 



(e) See Evans v. Fratt, 4 Scott, 

 N. R. 378. 



{d) See Holmes t. Sixsmith, 7 

 Exch. 802. 



{e) See Daintree t. Sutchinson, 

 16 M. & W. 87 ; Emerson v. Dick- 

 son, ante, p. 383. 



(/) See Batty v. Marriott, 5 C. B. 

 818 ; Coates v. Hatton, 3 Stark. 61. 



(g) See C'heeseman i. Sart, ante, 

 p. 392. 



(h) See Bostock v. Morth Stafford- 

 shire Sailway Co., 4 E. & B. 798. 



(i) See Kennedy v. Gad, 3 C. & 



P. 376; Manbyy. Scott, 1 Mod. 136. 



(k) See Jeffreys v. Walter, 1 Wils. 

 220 ; Walpole y. Sanders, 7 D. & E. 

 130 ; Sodson v. TerriU, 1 C. & M. 

 797; Solmesv. Bagge, 17 Jur. 1095. 



{I) See Sigel v. Jebb, 3 Stark. 2. 



(■»«) See Foot v. Baker, 5 M. & G. 

 339 ; Batty v. Marriott, 5 C. B. 818 ; 

 Seg. V. Bailey, 4 Cox, C. C. 396. 



(«) See Manby v. Scott, 1 Mod. 

 136. 



(o) See 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18, 

 Appendix. 



(p) If money is not staked, it is 

 not gaming, Reg. v. Ashton, 22 L. 

 J., M. C. 1. 



(?) See 13 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 9, 

 Appendix. 



(r) See 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 13, 

 Appendix. See also Farsons v. Alex- 

 ander, 1 Jur., N. S. 660. 



(s) See Feg. v. Ashton, 22 L. J., 

 M. C. 1, Q. B. 



(C) 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50. 



