INDEX.
- Added Money,
- Advertising
- Agent
- Authority of,
- indemnity,
- winnings,
- Art Unions
- Exempt from Lottery Laws, [147]
- Australian Law
- of wagering similar to English, [79], note
- Bank (see Gaming House)
- Banker
- Bankruptcy
- of principal determines agent’s authority, [61]
- of depositor, determines authority of stakeholder, ibid.
- Bank Shares (see Leeman’s Act)
- Barnard’s Act, [87]
- Bazaars,
- semble, within Lottery Act, [141]
- Betting (see Wager-Contract, Betting house, Agent: Public Place, Metropolis)
- Betting House (see Persons Resorting thereto)
- a common nuisance, [165]
- advertising, [191]
- illegal betting within Act, [181], et seq.
- Deposits (see Deposit)
- stakeholder, not liable, [167], [190]
- inviting persons to resort to, [192], et seq.
- manager of (see Manager)
- owner, occupier permitting user, [175]
- user of, [176], et seq.
- Warrant (see Procedure, Persons found therein)
- Betting Lists
- Bill of Exchange (for betting debt), [11] (see Cheque)
- Billiards (see Licensed Premises)
- Bonds
- are within 5 & 6 Wm. IV., c. 41, [28]
- Breeder
- query, his right to recover prize in Breeders’ Stakes, [76]
- Broker (see Stock Exchange)
- Bucket Shop
- Carrying Over (see Stock Exchange)
- Cheating at Play, [165]
- Cheque (see Bill of Exchange)
- Club
- Cock-fighting, [85]
- Commission Agent (see Agent)
- Company (see Partnership Lottery)
- Competitions, [186]
- Conflict of Laws,
- Conspiracy (see Cheating)
- Construction of Sporting Contract,
- Continuations (see Stock Exchange)
- Contributions to Prize (see Winner, Subscription Stakes), [73]
- Coupons, legal, [186]
- Cover (see Deposit)
- Cup, meaning of, [74]
- query, within “prize,” [74]
- Death
- Deed (see Illegal Consideration)
- Deposit (see Subscription to Prize)
- on bet when recoverable, [64]
- with keeper of Betting House, [65]
- in bucket shop transaction, right to recover, [66]
- query, illegal, [189]
- receiving, and keeping house for receiving (see Betting House Commission Agent), [187], [190]
- race, to abide, equivalent to a wager, [36]
- subscription to prize, not the test of, [69], et seq.
- under £10, not within Statute of Anne and Wm. IV., [12]
- with stakeholder (see Stakeholder)
- does not pass under gift of “money,” [60]
- in lotteries, recovery of, [143]
- Differences (see Stock Exchange, Broker)
- Dividends
- Entrance Money (see Subscription to Prize)
- Excessive Gaming
- Executor,
- must not pay betting debts of testator, [38], [64],
- nor sums deposited on bets, ibid., [64],
- secus, where testator kept a Betting House, [65]
- of betting agent, semble, most account to principal for winnings, [41]
- must not pay stakes or forfeits, [38]
- semble, can recover stakes, deposited by testator, [61]
- do. entrance money when, ibid.
- Fish Ponds,
- semble, illegal as lotteries, [142]
- Foreign Laws (see Conflict of Laws)
- Forfeit,
- Fraud (see Cheating)
- Games
- Gaming (see Gaming House, Unlawful Gaming, Lottery, Wager-Contract, Licensed Premises, Public Place, Instruments of Gaming, Excessive Gaming, Betting House)
- Gaming House (see Betting House, Licensed Premises)
- illegal at common law, [148] et seq.
- a common nuisance, ibid.
- Evidence of, [156]
- bank kept by some of players, ibid.
- excessive gaming, [157], [160]
- unequal chances of game, [156]
- unlawful game, playing of, ibid.
- obstruction of officers entering under powers of Act, [154], [156]
- instruments of gaming, ibid.
- contrivances,
- for destroying instruments, ibid.
- for barring doors or access, ibid.
- for giving alarm, ibid.
- Manager (see Manager)
- obstructing or assaulting officers entering, [154]
- giving false names and addresses, ibid.
- Partnership in (see Partnership)
- (see Persons found therein)
- club or private house may be, [160]
- procedure in respect of (see Procedure)
- user of, [160] (see Players)
- warrant, [196], et seq. (see Procedure)
- Grand Stand,
- Guarantee of Bet, [63]
- Hawkins, Sir Henry,
- Horse-Racing,
- Illegal Betting (see Betting House)
- Illegal Consideration (see Bill of Exchange, Lottery)
- void ditto, difference between and, [18]–20
- gaming debt is, [11]
- betting debt is, if bet on game, &c., ibid.
- bills or notes, effect of, on (see Bill of Exchange)
- is a defect of title, [19]
- should be specially pleaded, [23]
- deposit for, when recoverable, [143] et seq.
- should be accurately stated, [23]
- avoids bonds and other deeds, [24]
- part consideration illegal, whole avoided, [24] et seq.
- secus, where contract divisible, ibid.
- past race, bet on, not illegal, [11]
- deposit on race under £10, not an illegal consideration, [12]
- Illegality,
- Indian Law,
- Infant,
- sending advertisement or information to, [194]
- Information (see Procedure)
- with respect to betting (see Advertising)
- Instrument of Gaming,
- coin not included in, [205]
- pari-mutuel, ibid.
- in gaming houses, [156]
- may be seized by officers entering in Metropolis, [197]
- secus, out of Metropolis, ibid.
- superintendent entering may search for, ibid.
- evidence of gaming houses, [156]
- means for destroying ditto, ibid.
- magistrate may order destruction, [197]–8
- I O U,
- not within 5 & 6 Wm. IV., c. 41, [28]
- Ireland (see Metropolis)
- Irish Cases,
- Lynn v. Bell, }
- Crofton v. Colgan, }
- Graham v. Thompson, } (see Table of Cases.)
- MacElwaine v. Mercer, }
- Irwin v. Osborne, }
- Newcomen v. Lynch, }
- Judge (in race),
- jurisdiction of, [76] et seq.
- decision final, ibid.
- Leeman’s Act (see Stock Exchange Broker)
- Licensed Premises,
- Lists (see Betting Lists)
- Loan of Money,
- Lottery (see Place),
- adventurers in, penalty on, [129], [130], [132]
- advertising illegal, ibid.
- aiding and abetting, [130], [133]
- Art Unions, when legal, [147]
- bonus in companies, distribution of by lot, [137]
- companies formed for (see Partnership)
- characteristics of, [140]
- charter for, void, [128]
- in club or private house, [132]
- Bazaars,
- proceedings in, qy. within Lottery Acts, [142]
- definition of, [128], [140]
- fish ponds, [142]
- foreign lotteries, [133]
- illegality of, [142]
- deposits recoverable on notice, [143]
- vitiates subsidiary contract, ibid.
- little-goes illegal, [130]
- partnership in, [145]
- patent for, void, [128]
- sale under guise of setting up, [129], [130]
- stakeholder of, [133]
- sweepstakes, [134]
- tickets, sale of, [128] et seq.
- proceedings in case, [146]
- warrant for arrest, [130]
- Royal Palaces, exception in favour of, [86]
- no privilege of Parliament, [148]
- Manages of Betting House, Gaming House,
- Metropolis (see Public Place)
- Newmarket Meeting,
- Nominator,
- death of, avoids entry of horse, [38]
- Notice,
- to determine authority (see Stakeholder)
- of illegal consideration (see Bill of Exchange)
- Occupier (see Betting House Place)
- Official Assignee (see Stock Exchange)
- Options (see Stock Exchange)
- Palaces, Royal,
- exempt from laws against unlawful games and lotteries, [86]
- Partition by Lot,
- Partnership,
- Penalty to enforce Wager not Recoverable, [63]
- Person found therein (see Gaming House, Betting House)
- Persons resorting thereto (see Betting House)
- Place (see Public Place Betting House)
- Plate, meaning of, [74], [82]
- “Play or Pay,” meaning, [81] (see App. B.)
- Players (in illegal games) 118, [121], [152], [161]
- Privilege of Parliament,
- Prize (see Subscriptions to Prize)
- Procedure,
- Produce Stakes,
- breeders cannot recover, [76]
- Promissory Note (see Bill of Exchange)
- Public House (see Licensed Premises)
- Public Place,
- what is a, [206]
- Punters (see Players)
- Purchase (speculative)
- not a wager, [39]
- Race Course,
- Ready Money Betting,
- place kept or used for illegal betting, [187] et seq.
- (see Betting House, Commission Agent, Deposit)
- Rescission (by wager)
- void, [38]
- Room (see Place)
- Royal Palace
- gaming in, lawful, [86]
- Rules of Racing Evidence, [53], [81]
- Rules of Betting do., ibid. (see App. B.)
- Sale,
- wager under guise of, void, [35]
- lottery under guise of, illegal, [129], [139]
- bank shares (see Stock Exchange)
- speculative sales not wagers, [39]
- nor sales with contingencies, [36]
- of things first in possession, valid (see Indian Law), ibid.
- of public stocks not in possession formerly void under Barnard’s Act, [40], [87]
- of future dividends
- Scotland,
- Betting House Act applies to, [193]
- Stakeholder,
- agent for depositor only, [54] et seq.
- deposits revocable before paid over, ibid.
- notice necessary, [57]
- authority determined, [60]
- (1.) by express revocation
- (2.) by impossibility of performing his trust
- (3.) by death of depositor
- (4.) by bankruptcy of depositor (see Lottery)
- liability of
- for paying wrong person (see Winner), [62]
- for default in payment of stakes, ibid.
- cannot sue for stakes, ibid.
- not liable under Betting House Act, [190]
- Stakes
- Stamp semble,
- sporting agreement should have, [81]
- Starter,
- when necessary, [81]
- Steeplechase (see Horse-race)
- Steward of Race,
- Stock Exchange (see Broker)
- bargains for differences not known, [96] et seq. (but see Bucket Shop)
- test of difference, bargain, [91]
- customs of binding on principal, [117], [123]
- secus if contrary to law, ibid.
- broker liable personally to jobber, [96]
- bank shares, sale of, [116]
- continuations, nature of, [108] et seq.
- Options, puts, calls, nature of, [106]
- semble not in nature of wager, [107]
- Differences,
- Official Assignee,
- receives differences due to defaulter, [89]
- claims against, for differences due to defaulter, ibid.
- Trustee in bankruptcy of defaulter cannot recover differences from, ibid.
- Time Bargains, meaning of, [95], [101] (see Sales)
- Wagering,
- Subscription to Prize,
- “Sum Added” by OUTSIDER,
- recoverable, [73] (see Added Money)
- may be a subscription to a prize, ibid. (see Stakes)
- Superintendent
- (see Procedure, Instruments of Gaming, Metropolis)
- Sweepstakes (see Lottery, Stakeholder)
- Tattersall’s,
- not within Act, [183]
- Telegram (see Advertising)
- Ticket (see Lottery)
- Time Bargains (see Stock Exchange)
- Tipster,
- Umpire (see Judge, Winner)
- Unlawful Gaming
- Unlawful Games
- User (see Place Gaming House)
- Vexatious Indictment (see Procedure)
- Wager Contract (see Subscription to Prize Deposit)
- nature and test of, [32] et seq.
- agent and principal, agreement between not in nature of, [40]
- consensus and knowledge of both parties necessary, [32]
- construction of (see Construction)
- dividends, sale of future, not, [102]
- games, &c., for money, are, [36]
- guarantee of, enforceable, [63]
- mutuality necessary, [33]
- parties select their own events, [33]
- penalty for non-performance not recoverable
- rescission of contract by, void, [38]
- sale, under guise of, void, [35]
- sale of things not in possession, [39]
- time bargains (see Stock Exchange)
- winner and loser is of essence of, [33]
- Tipster, agreement with, [36] (but see note in Appendix A.)
- Warrant,
- Welshing, an indictable offence, [195]
- Winner,
- Winning,
[1]. 16 East, 150.
[2]. Evans v. Jones, 5 M. & W., 77.
[3]. Cowp., 37.
[4]. 1 T. R., at p. 60.
[5]. 2 Cowp., 729.
[6]. 4 Camp., 152.
[7]. 1 B. & Ald., 683.
[8]. 3 Camp., 168.
[9]. T. R., 693.
[10]. Atherfold v. Beard, 2 T. R., 610.
[11]. Squiers v. Waiskin, 3 Camp., 140.
[12]. McKinnell v. Robinson, 3 M. and W., 435.
[13]. Fisher v. Waltham, 4 Q. B., 889.
[14]. Gilbert v. Sykes, 16 East, 150.
[15]. 1 T. R., 56.
[16]. 12 East, 247.
[17]. By 18 Geo. II., c. 34, the test of excess was extended to the loss of £20 within 24 hours.
[18]. Smith v. Bond, 11 M. & W., 549.
[19]. 10 M. & W., 723.
[20]. 2 Wils., 349.
[21]. 10 M. & W., 723.
[22]. See post p. 84.
[23]. 5 Q. B., 693.
[24]. 7 Bing., 405.
[25]. Daintree v. Hutchinson, 10 M. & W., 85.
[26]. Lynall v. Longbottom, 2 Wils., 36. 1 C. & M., 797.
[27]. Jeffreys v. Walter, 1 Wils., 220.
[28]. 3 M. & W., 435.
[29]. See Squires v. Waiskin, 3 Camp., 140, and Martin v. Hewson, 10 Exch., 737.
[30]. 1 Q. B., 631.
[31]. Emery v. Richards, 14 M. & W., 728.
[32]. 2 Burr, 1080.
[33]. 2 Camp.
[34]. 2 Strange, 1249.
[35]. 1 10 M. & W., 723.
[36]. See, too, Thorpe v. Coleman, 1 C. B., 990.
[37]. 7 Bing, 405.
[38]. 2 Strane, 1155.
[39]. 4 B. & Ald., 212.
[40]. Q. B., 631.
[41]. 5 E. & B., 238.
[42]. 10 M. & W., 723.
[43]. 1 C. B., 990.
[44]. 14 M. & W., 728.
[45]. 1 Phil. 147.
[46]. 8 Ch. Div., 756.
[47]. 8 Ch. Div. 756.
[48]. 8 L. T. N. S., 255, and see Quarrier v. Coulston, 1 Phil. 147.
[49]. 3 M. & W.
[50]. See Foot v. Baker, 5 M. & G., 335.
[51]. 7 Taunt, 246.
[52]. 2 Phil. 801.
[53]. 11 Ch. Div., 170.
[54]. 15 Ch. Div. 247.
[55]. 1 Ex Div., 13. A fuller report is in 33 L. T. n.s., 700.
[56]. Post, p. 42.
[57]. Fitch v. Jones, 5 E. & B., 238. See Lord Campbell’s judgment.
[58]. 45 & 46 Vict., c. 61.
[59]. 23 Q. B. D. 345.
[60]. 5 E. & B. 238.
[61]. 56 L. J. Q. B. 248.
[62]. 3 M. & K. 104.
[63]. Sm. & G. 194.
[64]. 6 Ad. & E.
[65]. B. & Ald., 212.
[66]. O. XIX., r. 15.
[67]. Harvey v. Towers, 6 Ex. 656.
[68]. 2 M. & W., 641. See, too, Bingham v. Stanley, 2 Q.B., 117.
[69]. 1 Bing., N. C.
[70]. O. XXVIII, r. 6., Rules of Court, 1883.
[71]. 4 B. & Ald., 212. Ante, p. 10.
[72]. 3 Sm. & G., 194.
[73]. 16 Q. B., 423.
[74]. L. R. 9 Eq., 471.
[75]. 4 Taunt, 165.
[76]. 1 H. & N. 278.
[77]. Soulby v. Portarlington, 3 M. &. K., 104; Pearce v. Gray, 2 Y. & C. 322; Milltown v. Stewart, 3 M. & C., 18; Fox v. Hill, 2 D. & J., 353.
[78]. Sec. 24 (5).
[79]. 13 L. T., 71 and 159.
[80]. Ir. Rep. 10, C. L., 487.
[81]. 3 Sm. & G., 194.
[82]. Ir. Rep. 10 C. L. 487.
[83]. 5 E. & B., 270.
[84]. 1 Phil. 147; Bubb v. Yelverton, L. R. 9, Eq. 471, was the case of a bond but was decided on another point.
[85]. This expression did not apply to an action commenced before the Act was passed. Vide Moon v. Durden, 2 Ex., 22.
[86]. L. R., 10 Q. B., 109.
[87]. 1 Q. B., vid. sup., 9.
[88]. 5 App. Ca. p. 344.
[89]. 8 Ch. D., 756.
[90]. 10 M. & W., 723.
[91]. 4 Jur. N. S., 693.
[92]. 4 Q. B. D., 685.
[93]. 10 Q. B. D., 100.
[94]. 5 E. & B., 238. Vid. sup., p. 11. et seq., as to the law relating to bills given for an illegal consideration.
[95]. 33 L. T. n.s., 561.
[96]. 4 Q. B. D., 685. The cases bearing on this point are more fully discussed in the next chapter on Stock Exchange Transactions.
[97]. Per Cotton, L. J., in Thacker v. Hardy, p. 695.
[98]. 2 Wils., 309.
[99]. See, too, Caminada v. Hulton, 60 L. J. M. C., 116.
[100]. Each promise to pay on one event, being the consideration, and the sole consideration for the promise to pay in the other event.
[101]. See Stutfield on “Tattersall’s Rules of Betting,” Field Office, where this view of the matter is fully elucidated.
[102]. 4 H. & N., 359.
[103]. 5 E. & B., 904.
[104]. 11 C. B., 526.
[105]. 10 Ir. Rep. Com. L., 133.
[106]. 3 Bing., N. C., 88.
[107]. 2 C. P. D., 76.
[108]. 5 Q.B., 693.
[109]. 2 Ex. Div. 422.
[110]. 10 M. & W., 723.
[111]. 7 D. M. & G., 55.
[112]. 36 L. T. n.s., 702.
[113]. By. & M., 386.
[114]. B. & C., 1.
[115]. 5 M. & W., 462.
[116]. 4 Q. B. D., at p. 6.
[117]. 33 L. T. n.s., at p. 563.
[118]. 4 Q. B. D., at p. 688. See further on this topic the chapter on the Stock Exchange.
[119]. 26 L. J. Ch., 841.
[120]. 12 C. B. 468.
[121]. 36 L. J. Exch., 178.
[122]. Ante p. 48, where the case is more fully set out.
[123]. 15 Q. B. D., 363.
[124]. 22 Q. B. D., 680.
[125]. 7 T. R., 157.
[126]. See, too, and consider MacRae v. Clark, L. R. 1 C. P., 403.
[127]. 20 Q. B. D. at p. 643.
[128]. See Ferrar’s Case, L. R. 9 Ch. 355.
[129]. 7 T. L. R. 748.
[130]. 10 Ex., 572.
[131]. 10 Ex., 614.
[132]. 15 C. B., 562.
[133]. 15 C. B. n.s., 316.
[134]. 4 Taunt, 165.
[135]. W. N. C., 1870, 95.
[136]. 24 L. T. n.s., 822.
[137]. 4 Q. B. D., 685.
[138]. 44 L. J. C. P., 309.
[139]. 26 Sol. Jour., 509.
[140]. See per Wilde, C.J., in Smart v. Sandars, 5 C.B., 895.
[141]. 10 Q. B. D., 100.
[142]. 15 C. B. n.s., 316.
[143]. 33 L. T. n.s., 561.
[144]. 10 Q. B. D., 100.
[145]. 13 Q. B. D., 779; 51 L. T. n.s., 102.
[146]. 15 Q. B. D., 363.
[147]. See post Appendix B. and Stutfield’s “Tattersall’s Rules of Betting:” Field Office.
[148]. As bets are not recognised by law, this would seem to be the only criterion in such matters, but see Robinson v. Mollett, L. R., 7; H. L. 802.
[149]. W. N. C., 89, p. 116.
[150]. Hastelow v. Jackson, 8 B. & C., 225; Aubert v. Walsh, 3 Taunt, 277; Smith v. Bickmore, 4 Taunt, 474; Howson v. Hancock, 8 T. R., 575; Robinson v. Mearns, 6 D. & R., 26; Bate v. Cartwright, 7 Price, 540.
[151]. 14 M. & W. See, too, Hudson v. Terrill, 1 Cr. & M., 797.
[152]. 1 B. & Ald., 683.
[153]. 14 M. & W., 728. See, too, Maryat v. Broderick, 2 M. & W., 369, where Parke, B., doubts the right of one depositor in a legal horse-race to recover his stake.
[154]. 5 C. B., 271.
[155]. 10 Exch., 737.
[156]. 9 Q. B., 431.
[157]. 36 L. J. Exch., 178.
[158]. 1 Q. B. D., 189.
[159]. 8 B. & C., 225.
[160]. Graham v. Thompson, Ir. R. 2 C. L., 64.
[161]. 2 Ex. Div. 422.
[162]. 5 App. Ca. 342. See also MacElwaine v. Mercer, 9 Ir. Rep. C. L., 17.
[163]. The reader should refer to the observations at p. 37, where the view is expressed that the law relating to wagers applies to an ordinary horse-race for stakes. The result of this would be that the present observations as to the rights of depositors and stakeholders apply also.
[164]. Weller v. Deakin, 2 C. & P., 618; Goldsmith v. Martin, 4 M. & G., 5.
[165]. 28 L. J. Q. B., 126. I. E. & E. 456.
[166]. 7 D. M. & G., 55.
[167]. See Markwick v. Hardingham, 15 Ch. Div., 339.
[168]. 1 Q. B. D., 197.
[169]. 5 C. & P., 147.
[170]. L. R., 2; P. C., 280.
[171]. L. R. 4, Q. B., 214 and post p. 77.
[172]. 5 Ir. Rep., C. L., 404.
[173]. See, too, Daintree v. Hutchinson, 10 M. & W. 85, on this point.
[174]. 7 D. M. & G., 55.
[175]. 4 T. L. R., 326.
[176]. 19 C. B. n.s. 765, but far better reported, 13, W. R., 390.
[177]. See Rouquette v. Overmann, L. R., 10; Q. B., 525. For further details and authorities reference may be made to “Story’s Conflict of Laws,” or “Foote’s International Jurisprudence.”
[178]. 2 Burr, 1,077. See, too, Wynne v. Callander, 1 Russ., 293.
[179]. See King v. Kemp, 8 L. T., n.s. 255.
[180]. 1 Phil., 147.
[181]. 12 O.B., 801.
[182]. Vide sup. p. 14, where this subject is dealt with in reference to cheques.
[183]. King v. Kemp, 8 L. T. n.s., 255.
[184]. 5 C. B., 818.
[185]. 1 Jur. N. S., 660. 5 E. & B. 270.
[186]. 12 C. B., at p. 472.
[187]. 11 Exh., 715.
[188]. 5 Ir. Rep. C. L., 404.
[189]. L. R., 1 Ex., 248.
[190]. Ex. Div., 422; the facts are stated above.
[191]. 5 App. Ca., 342.
[192]. 5 App. Ca., 342.
[193]. L. R. 4 Q. B., 14.
[194]. L. R., 2 P. C. 78, vide post p. 78.
[195]. Vide sup., p. 36, where this question is fully discussed.
[196]. In Dowsen v. Scriven, 1 H. Bl., 219, “entrance money” was defined as money which must be paid before the horse can start, but see Rule of Racing 106.
[197]. Apply the principal of Truman v. Harris, 9 Q. B. D., 264.
[198]. 10 Ir. Rep., C. L., 133.
[199]. Defendant did not quote the saying of St. Paul, 1 Cor. ix. 24, “in a race run all but one receiveth the prize.”
[200]. 1 C. P. D., 573.
[201]. 5 Ir. Rep., C. L., 404.
[202]. 28 L. J., Q. B., 126. 1 E. & E. 456.
[203]. L.R., 4 Q.B., 214. See, too, Evans v. Pratt, 3 M. & G.
[204]. The point was not taken in this case that the agreement was in the nature of a wager and the plaintiff therefore entitled to revoke the stakeholder’s authority, but it will be observed that the defendant had paid over the money without receiving notice from plaintiff.
[205]. 14 M. & W., 193.
[206]. 28 L. J., Q. B.
[207]. 28 L. J., Exch., 1.
[208]. 11 Exch., 715.
[209]. L. R., 2 P. C. 280.
[210]. The laws with regard to wagers in N. S. Wales, if, indeed, they were in any way material to this case, seem to be a reproduction of 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109. Trimble v. Hill, 5 App. Ca., 342.
[211]. 15 D. R., 69.
[212]. Ir. Rep., 10 C. L., 248.
[213]. 3 Camp. 168.
[214]. 3 M. & G., 759.
[215]. 10 M. & W., 85.
[216]. See Stutfield’s “Tattersall’s Rules of Betting,” p. 10.
[217]. Dines v. Woolf, L. R. 2 P. C. 280. Weller v. Deakin, 2 C. & P. Greville v. Chapman, 5 Q. B. 731.
[218]. Evans v. Pratt, 3 M. & G., 759; and see 17 L. T., 323.
[219]. L. R. 2 P. C., 280. Weller v. Deakin, 2 C. & P. Greville v. Chapman, 5 Q. B.
[220]. Balfe v. West, 13 C. B., 466, at all events until he has done some official act. See Rules of Racing, Part III.
[221]. See Blaxton v. Pye, Wils, 309; Applegarth v. Colley, 10 M. & W., 723.
[222]. 3 M. & G., 768.
[223]. 3 M. & G., 765.
[224]. Morley v. Greenhalgh, 32 L. J. M. C., 93.
[225]. See Parsons v. Alexander, 1 Jur. N.S., 660.
[226]. Ovenden v. Raymond, 34 L. T. N. S., 199.
[227]. As to hazard, see McKinnell v. Robinson, 3 M. & W.
[228]. R. v. Ashton, 22 L. J. M. C., 1. 1 E. & B., 286.
[229]. See particularly the account of the Park Club Case (post p. 158.)
[230]. See Stutfield’s “Rules and Usages of the Stock Exchange”; Effingham Wilson.
[231]. Wells v. Porter, 3 M. & W., 722; Lyne v Siesfield, 1 H. & N., 278; Williams v. Trye, 23 L.J. Ch., 360.
[232]. 4 Burr, 2070.
[233]. 8 B. & Ald., 179; compare Mortimer v. MacCallan, 6 M. & W., 58, where the stock was actually delivered to the vendor.
[234]. 5 E. & B., 999.
[235]. The Act provided that money paid to settle differences could be recovered back by an action, sect. 5.
[236]. 1 B. & P., 3—viz., that an agent cannot set up the illegality of a transaction in answer to the principal’s claim for an account, but see post pp. 162–4.
[237]. 13 Ch. D., 667.
[238]. 11 C. B., 526.
[239]. 33 L. T., n. s., at p. 563.
[240]. 4 Q. B. D., at p. 695.
[241]. W. N. C., 1 June, 1878; see, too, Barry v. Crosskey, 2 J. & H., 1, where this test was adopted.
[242]. At p. 694.
[243]. 17 C. S. C., p. 475.
[244]. 4 Q. B. D. 685.
[245]. 5 M. & W., 462.
[246]. 15 Ch. Div., 207.
[247]. As to carrying over, see post p. 108, et seq.
[248]. 13 Ch. Div., 665.
[249]. Byers v. Beattie, 16 W. R., 279.
[250]. 4 Q. B. D., at p. 696.
[251]. 16 C. S. C., 350.
[252]. 33 L. T., N. S., 561.
[253]. This seems the result of the cases Grizewood v. Blane, 11 C. B., 526; Ex parte Marnham, 30 L. J., Bkpcy., 3.
[254]. 4 T. L. R., 326.
[255]. 17 C. S. C., 466.
[256]. “The evidence of Willis seems to make it clear that the customer had this option, though this feature of the case was clearer in Howat’s case (post). It does not appear whether the accounts were closed by Shaw or by defendant’s instructions, but this does not seem to affect the argument.”
[257]. 30 L. J. Bkpcy. 3.
[258]. Since the above was written the case of Stevens v. Universal Stock Exchange has been reported, 40 W.R. 494; in that case, however, it does not appear that the printed conditions gave the customer the option to treat the transactions as difference bargains.
[259]. See the Report of the Commissioners, p. 274, No. 6949.
[260]. See Report of 1878, at p. 29.
[261]. 4 Q. B. D. at p. 696.
[262]. See as to this Bongiovanni v. Société Générale, 54 L.T. n.s., 320, and Stutfield’s “Rules and Usages of the Stock Exchange:” Effingham Wilson.
[263]. 30 L.J. Bkpcy., 1.
[264]. 30 L. J. Bkpcy., 3.
[265]. In ex parte Turner, 3 D. & J., 46, it was held that carrying over an account would bring a bankrupt within s. 201 of the Act of 1849, and be a bar to his obtaining his discharge.
[266]. See Report, 1878, p. 23, Mr. Daniel’s evidence.
[267]. 4 Q. B. D., 690.
[268]. 33 L. T., N. S., 561.
[269]. 1870, W. N. C., 95. See also the cases quoted above as to the right of the agent to recover.
[270]. Ex parte Ryder, 1 De G. & J., 317; Ex parte Wade, 8 D. M. & G., 241; Ex parte Matheson, 1 D. M. & G.
[271]. Ex parte Turner, 3 D. & J. 46.
[272]. See 46 & 47 Vict., c. 52, sec. 28(3) d.
[273]. 9 Q. B. D., 546.
[274]. For the nature and incidents of this transaction, vide Coles v. Bristowe, L. R., 4 Ch. 3., and Stutfield’s “Rules and Usages of the Stock Exchange:” Effingham Wilson.
[275]. Not yet reported except in the newspapers, August 11, 1884.
[276]. 15 Q. B. D., 388.
[277]. 14 Q. B. D., 460.
[278]. “Times,” 4th April, 1892.
[279]. 9 M. & W.
[280]. 32 Ch. D. 625.
[281]. But see next page for the law as recently altered by the Gaming Amendment Act, 1892.
[282]. P. 53.
[283]. 11 Q. B. D., at p. 210.
[284]. See O’Connor v. Bradshaw, 5 Ex., 882; Fisher v. Bridges, 3 E. & B., 642.
[285]. See ante, p. 86, as to the exception of Royal Palaces.
[286]. See Taylor v. Smetten, 11 Q.B.D., p. 210.
[287]. 14 M. & W., 711.
[288]. See pp. 129–130.
[289]. 44 Ch. D. 306.
[290]. 1 C. B., 974.
[291]. The learned Serjeant is evidently using the point decided in Applegarth v. Colley—that the Statute of Anne contemplated a case where a single person lost £10.
[292]. 9 Q. B., 431. See, too, Mearing v. Helling, 14 M. and W., 711.
[293]. 2 H. & C., 912., 28 J. P., 199.
[294]. 5 Ex., 882.
[295]. 11 Ch. Div., 170.
[296]. 5 App. Ca.
[297]. 10 Cox, C. C., 352.
[298]. 11 Q. B. D., 206.
[299]. 52 J. P. 821.
[300]. 60 L. J. M. C. 116.
[301]. 1 C. B. 974.
[302]. See per Pollock, C.B., in O’Connor v. Bradshaw, 5 Exch. at p. 891.
[303]. 3 E. & B., 642.
[304]. 12 Geo. II., c. 28, 1.
[305]. 2 Ex. Div. 422, ante p. 58.
[306]. Wilson v. Strugnell, 7 Q.B.D., p. 551. Kearley v. Thomson, 24 Q.B.D., 742.
[307]. Savage v. Madder, 36 L. J. Ex. 178.
[308]. 9 Q. B. 431.
[309]. Per Fry, L. J. Kearley v. Thomson.
[310]. 2 Cowper 790.
[311]. See, too, Jacques v. Golightly, 2 Black 1073.
[312]. Allport v. Nutt, 1 C. B. 974.
[313]. 1 C. B., 974.
[314]. Vide sup., p. 17.
[315]. 1 B. & P., 3.
[316]. 1 Ex. Div. 13.
[317]. Bell C. C.
[318]. 5 B. & A., 555.
[319]. 5 T. R., 338.
[320]. 9 Dowl, 937.
[321]. 11 Q. B. D. 207.
[322]. 1 B. & C., 27.
[323]. These statutes have been set out above in the Chapter on Lotteries.
[324]. See post p. 161.
[325]. 13 Q. B. D. p. 524.
[326]. The importance of this as bearing on the present law of unlawful games is dealt with in Turpin v. Jenks (see post).
[327]. 13 Q. B. D., 377.
[328]. The procedure by which warrants may be issued and proceedings enforced against the keepers of gaming houses is dealt with post p. 196.
[329]. See sections 3 and 6, post p. 196 et seq.
[330]. We have already discussed the nature of gaming houses at Common Law, pp. 149–151.
[331]. See post for all full account of the case, 13 Q. B. D., 505.
[332]. 13 Q. B. D., 505.
[333]. The case occurred within the C Division of Police, and so properly belonged to the Marlborough Street Police Court jurisdiction; but, being public prosecution by the police, was heard at Bow Street.
[334]. See Crockford v. Maidenhead, 8 L. T., 217.
[335]. Sec. 16 of the Act of Henry forbade apprentices and artificers, &c., to play tennis, bowls, coyting, and other games.
[336]. As to what constitutes a game of chance, see post “Betting in a public place.”
[337]. 13 Q. B. D., 505.
[338]. 7 Taunt, 246.
[339]. 2 Phil., 801.
[340]. 15 Q. B. D., 363.
[341]. 11 Ch. D., at p. 195.
[342]. 9 M. & W., at p. 642.
[343]. 1 B. & P., 3.
[344]. 1 B. & P., 296.
[345]. 11 Ch. D., at p. 194.
[346]. 5 E. & B., at p. 1016.
[347]. 4 Q. B. D., 685 Lyne v, Siesfield, 1 H. & N., 278.
[348]. 12 C. B., 468.
[349]. 45 L. T., N. S., 512; 15 Cox, C. C., 3.
[350]. 8 Cox, C. C., 305; 4 Cox, 390.
[351]. See Smith v. Bond, 11 M. & W., 549.
[352]. As to the difference between the offence under this section, also those specified in ss. 1 and 3, see post p. 190.
[353]. 19 C. B. N. S., 765; 34 L. J. C. P., 159. See ante p. 65 as to this case.
[354]. L. R., 9 Q. B., at page 443. Qy. whether the case would not come with 36 & 37 Vict., c. 94.
[355]. 3 B. & S., 374; 32 L. J. (M. C.), 93.
[356]. L. R., 9 Q. B., at p. 444.
[357]. L. R., 9 C. P., 339.
[358]. L. R., 3 Ex., i. 37.
[359]. L. R., 9 C. P., 339. See 36 & 37 Vict., c. 94.
[360]. L. R., 9 Q. B., 440.
[361]. L. R., 10 Q. B., 102.
[362]. 8 Q. B. D., 275.
[363]. 14 Q. B. D., 588.
[364]. 62 L. T. n. s., 433.
[365]. 13 Q. B. D., 377.
[366]. Not yet reported, but likely to be reported in Cox, C. C., during 1892.
[367]. 13 C. S. C. (Just.) p. 9.
[368]. 62 L. M. S., 433.
[369]. 192 1 Q. B., 20.
[370]. L. R., 10 Q. B., 102.
[371]. 12 Q. B., D. 36.
[372]. 44 L. J. C. P., 309; 32 L. T. N. S., 825.
[373]. L. R., 9 Q. B., 440.
[374]. 10 Q. B., 102.
[375]. 41 J. P., 792.
[376]. 62 L. T. N. S. 433.
[377]. 44 L. J. C. P., 309.
[378]. 14 Q. B. D., 588.
[379]. See Morley v. Greenhalge, 32, L. J. M. C., 93.
[380]. 14 Q. B. D., at p. 591.
[381]. 13 Q. B. D., 505.
[382]. 37 J. P., 262.
[383]. 13 Q. B. D., at p. 525.
[384]. 13 Q. B. D., 377.
[385]. 44 L. J. C. P., 309.
[386]. 8 L. T., 217.
[387]. L. R., 10 Q. B., 102.
[388]. The preamble, however, does speak of setting up betting offices.
[389]. Hansard, Vol. 129, p. 87.
[390]. See, too, per Hawkins, J., Reg. v. Preedie, referred to, ante p. 174.
[391]. As to these establishments, see ante p. 66, and ante the chapter on the Stock Exchange.
[392]. 60 L.J.M.C. 116: The case has before been dealt with under Lotteries.
[393]. 34 J.P., 661.
[394]. 24 Q. B. D., 529; better reported 62 L. T. N. S., 436.
[395]. 13 M. & W., 838.
[396]. Hansard, Vol. 218, p. 595.
[397]. L. R., 12 Q. B. D., 128.
[398]. 20 Q. B. D., 182.
[399]. Reg. v. Newton, L.R., 1892, 1 Q. B., 648.
[400]. A question was raised in Turpin v. Jenks, as to what was to be done with the “persons found therein.” The answer seems to be that the power is given to enable the officers to ascertain by inquiry how far these persons were responsible for the gaming. See per Field, J., in Anderson v. Hume, 46, J.P. 825; besides, the Statute 17 & 18 Vict., c. 38, compels these persons to give their addresses. It would seem therefore that having given their addresses they should be released until the police are in a position to make a definite charge against them.
[401]. See, too, Anderson v. Hume, 46 J. P. 825.
[402]. 28 L. J. M. C., 45; 1 E. & E., 276.
[403]. Ex. Div. 320.
[404]. 46 J. P., 825, and see ante, p. 197, note.
[405]. 1 Ex Div., 320.
[406]. In the same case (2 Ex. Div., 335) it was held that there was no appeal from the Divisional Court, this being a criminal matter.
[407]. Lee v. Gold, 44 J. P., 395.
[408]. Onley v. Gee, 7 Jur., N.S., 570.
[409]. See Anderson v. Hume, 46 J. P., 825.
[410]. 1 Q. B. D., 89.
[411]. 1 Q. B. D., 84.
[412]. 12 Q. B. D., 360.
[413]. Ubi sup.
[414]. 21 Q. B. D., 249.
[415]. 1 E. & A., 286; 22 L. J. M. C., 1.
[416]. 20 L. T., 483.
[417]. 3 Q. B. D., 454.
[418]. 22. Q. B. D. 351.
[419]. 29 L. J. M. C., 189.
[420]. Hare v. Osborne, 34 L. T., 294.
[421]. Cooper v. Osborne, 85 L. T., 347.
[422]. 5 M. & G., 335.
[423]. 58 L. J. M. C.
[424]. 34 L. J M. C., 50.
[425]. L. R., 6 Q. B., 130.
[426]. L. R., 6 Q. B., 514.
[427]. Reg. v. Holmes, 25 L. J. M. C., 121.
[428]. 45. J. P., 469;
[429]. Langrish v. Archer, 10 Q. B. D., 44; but see re Freestone, 1 H. & N., 93.
[430]. 34 L. J. C. P., 159.
[431]. 13 Q. B. D., 505.
[432]. 22 Q. B. D., 351.
[433]. See Stutfield’s “Tattersall’s Rules on Betting,” Field Office.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
- Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling.
- Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.
- Re-indexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter.