Betting at games alone within statute.
It should be observed that the statute does not deal with wagering generally, but only with gambling and betting at games, sports, or pastimes. In Applegarth v. Colley[[19]] it was decided that the games and pastimes aimed at by both statutes are the same.
Both these points have an important bearing on the law as it exists at the present day, as will be seen when we come to discuss the provisions of 5 & 6 William IV. Before dealing with the latter statute, it will be important to notice a few points which were decided on the effect of the two earlier statutes, otherwise the provisions of the Statute of William IV. will not be intelligible.
Games within the statute.
(1.) As to the games dealt with, the Statutes of Charles II. and of Anne are very general, speaking of “any games whatsoever.” At the same time certain games have in particular been expressly decided to be within the Acts.
Horse-racing.
Thus horse-racing is specifically mentioned in the Act of Charles II., but not in that of Anne. However, in Blaxton v. Pye[[20]] and in Applegarth v. Colley,[[21]] this species of pastime was decided to be within the Statute of Anne, the “games” mentioned in which statute were the same as those mentioned in the Statute of Charles II. This subject will be treated more fully when we come to the Statute 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109. For a long time horse-racing was illegal, except under certain conditions[[22]], but was early in this reign legalised generally by 3 & 4 Vict., c. 35. But although the racing itself was made legal, that did not affect the provisions of the statute against wagering.
Wagers not legalised by 3 & 4 Vict., c. 35.
Thus in Bentinck v. Connop[[23]] a race was to be run for stakes of £50 for each colt, to which the plaintiff and defendant were subscribers, the defendant subscribing for three colts. The plaintiff won the race, but the defendant disputing the result refused to pay his stakes. Plaintiff sued him to recover the amount he should have paid by the agreement. It was admitted that the race itself was not illegal as it did not infringe the Statute of George II., but held that the fact of the race being legal did not make the contract enforceable—that the contract was within the Statute of Charles II., a contract to pay a sum of money exceeding £100 lost at horse-racing, and not paid down at the time; but that it would have been recoverable (? from the stakeholder) if the money had been deposited before the race. To the same effect was the decision in Shillito v. Theed,[[24]] that the Statute of George II. had not repealed the provisions of the earlier statutes as to wagering.
Dog matches[[25]] mentioned in the Statute of Charles II. include coursing matches as well as dog fights.