Agent or Manager.
The same, it is submitted, applies to the case of an agent or manager of such an establishment: he certainly could not sue his principal for reimbursement or salary, Thacker v. Hardy,[[347]] so it is difficult to see why the principal should have a right to an account against his agent for profits. Nearly all cases where Sharp v. Taylor has been approved the real question did not arise, as they were in many cases like Johnson v. Lansley,[[348]] adventures in betting transactions which are not illegal: this matter is dealt with post p. 191.
Cheating at play.
Another offence besides keeping a gaming house dealt with by this statute is cheating at play. By section 17, “Every person who shall by any fraud or unlawful device or ill practice in playing at or with cards, dice, tables, or other game, or in bearing a part in the stakes, wagers or adventures, or in betting on the sides or hands of them that do play, or in wagering on the event of any game, sport, or pastime, win from any other person to himself or any other or others any sum of money or valuable thing, shall be deemed guilty of obtaining such money, &c., by a false pretence, and punished accordingly.” In Regina v. O’Connor[[349]] it was held that where persons fraudulently won from another certain property by tossing with coins, that was a “pastime” within the Act if it was not a “game.”
As to conspiracy to defraud by the means mentioned in this section, see Regina v. Hudson.[[350]]
Games.
There can be no doubt that horse-racing is a “game” within the meaning of this section as it was within the Statute of Anne (sup. Cap. I., Part I). It would seem that the offence of winning is complete directly the event is declared in favour of the person who is guilty of the fraud, before the money is actually paid over.[[351]]
Privilege of Parliament.
By 18 Geo. II., c. 34, s. 7, no privilege of Parliament can be pleaded to a charge of keeping a gaming house.