436 GAMING. 



knowing how they were to be used, amounted to aiding and 

 abetting in the keeping of such lottery, and that the inciting 

 the retail dealer in such illegal dealing was evidence to 

 support the conviction. 

 ?i**t"^i'^ °* One of the results of lotteries being declared illegal is 



lotteries^ " that not only an agreement which has for its object, or in 

 any way contemplates, the setting up of a lottery, but also 

 any security given for the purpose of carrying out any such 

 agreement, is tainted with illegality, and will, therefore, 

 not be enforced. In Fisher v. Bridges (x) the plaintiff 

 agreed to sell and convey to the defendant certain land for 

 the purpose of its being resold by lottery in contravention 

 of the 12 Geo. 2, c. 28, ajite, p. 427. The land having been 

 conveyed to the defendant, but part of the purchase-money 

 being unpaid, the latter entered into a covenant with the 

 plaintiff to secure the payment of the balance. To an 

 action on the covenant the defendant pleaded the illegality 

 f)f the transaction. It was held by the Exchequer Chamber, 

 reversing the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, that 

 the plea was good ; for, the deed being given as a security 

 for the payment of a debt tainted with illegality, the law, 

 which would not enforce the payment of the debt, would nut 

 enforce the payment of the money. 



The illegality of lotteries raises a question as to the right 

 of a subscriber to a lottery to recover the amount of his 

 subscription. The general rule is that where money is paid 

 upon an illegal contract, it may be recovered back before 

 the execution of the contract, but not afterwards. And we 

 have already seen, when dealing with " Stakeholders," ante, 

 p. 379, that money paid to a stakeholder to abide an illegal 

 event may be recovered notwithstanding that the event has 

 happened, provided that the depositor gives notice of his 

 claim to the stakeholder before he pays it over ; for the 

 contract is not completely executed until the money has 

 been paid over, and therefore the depositor may retract at 

 any time before that has been done. Upon this principle it 

 would appear that a subscriber to a lottery is entitled to 

 recover the amount of his subscription from the person 

 setting up the lottery, when the position of the latter is that 

 of a stakeh(.)lder, provided that he gives notice of his claim 

 before the distribution of the prizes (y). 



The question whether a, subscriber to a lottery, who has 



{x) 3 E. & B. 642; 23 L. J., Ch. 154; 62 L. J., Ch. 636; 68 

 (J. B. 276— Ex. Ch. L. T., N. S. 709; 42 W. U. 74— 



(y) Barclay v. Pearson, [1893] 2 Stirling, J. 



