448 



GAMING. 



Summons to 

 set aside a 

 ■warrant of 

 attorney. 



A post obit 

 security held 

 good. 



Deed substi- 

 tuted for one 

 tainted with 

 illegality. 



ing, if answered, to render him liable to be proceeded 

 against under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, when the judge inter- 

 fered. On a motion for a new trial, on the ground of mis- 

 direction, the Court of Common Pleas held that the judge 

 was right, and refused the rule (/). 



In Burnett v. Rcwenshcm (k), an order was made by a 

 judge at chambers, on a summons to show cause why a 

 certain warrant of attorney, alleged to have been given 

 for a gambling debt, should not be set aside. 



In 1833, a. post obit security was given in consideration 

 of certain gaming debts. In 1842, it was assigned to 

 another party for valuable consideration, who gave notice 

 to the trustees of the fund. It was held in 1853, by 

 the Master of the Rolls, that, after the lapse of time, 

 the deed must be considered to have been given for good 

 consideration (/). 



In the case of The Attornei/- General v. Sollingtcorth (m), 

 it was held, that where, upon an advance of money, a 

 security has been taken, which is tainted with usury (w) or 

 other illegality, and afterwards another security is taken 

 for the same advance, not tainted with the illegality, and 

 obviating any necessity for resorting to the former one for 

 the recovery of the money, such substituted securit)' is valid, 

 and the money really advanced can be recovered thereon. 



(j) Fisher T. Ronalds, 22 L. J., 

 C. p. 62. 



{k) Barnett Y. liavenshaw, 21 L. 

 T. 63. 



(I) Hawlcer v. Wood, 1 W. R. 316, 

 M. E. 



(m) Att.-Gen. v. Eollingworth, 

 27 L. J., Ex. 102. 



(n) The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 90, s. 1, 

 repeals all existing laws against 

 usury. 



