PART II.

5 & 6 Wm. IV., c. 41. Section 1.—Securities

Such was the state of the law when the Statute 5 & 6, William IV., c. 41 was passed, which in effect provides by section 1 that so much of the Statutes of Charles II. and 11|deemed to be given for illegal consideration.| Anne which declared that any note, bill, or mortgage should be absolutely void should be repealed, but that any note, bill, or mortgage which were declared void by such statutes should be deemed to have been made, drawn, accepted, given, or executed for an illegal consideration.

Section 2.—Acceptor can recover from drawer.

By section 2 it is enacted that if the person who gives such note, bill, or mortgage should actually pay to the holder of such security the money secured thereby, such payment shall be taken to have been made for and on account of the person to whom the security was originally given.

It should be noticed that the only alteration in the law made by this statute is that instead of avoiding the securities, given for gaming debts altogether, it declares that the consideration for which they are given shall be illegal, or in other words, it puts such securities on the same footing as those which are given for an illegal consideration.

We have to consider—

I. What transactions are within the statute.

II. The legal result of a cheque, bill, &c., being given for an illegal consideration.

III. The remedy of a person who has given such an instrument.

I. Transactions within the statute.

Transactions within statute.

(1.) The statute only applies to bets on games, which term, as has been explained under the Statute of Anne, includes horse races. It must be remembered that the decisions under the latter statute apply to the present statute, except so far as the present statute has expressly altered the provisions of the earlier statute.

Bets after race not within statute.

(2.) It was decided in Pugh v. Jenkins^[40] that the statute of Anne only applied to bets either before or during the game or race, the words being “do and shall play.” It often happens that, immediately after the horses have passed the post, people bet on the correctness of their judgment as to whether a horse has won or got a place. It would seem, therefore, that a note or cheque given in payment of such a bet would not be given for an illegal consideration, though, 12of course, as in Fitch v. Jones^[41], the consideration would be void. The difference between the two will be explained hereafter.

Statute did not apply to stakes under £10 deposited.

(3.) The Statute of Anne did not apply where the stakes for under £10 were deposited before the race by the competitors. This point was settled in the well-known case of |Applegarth v. Colley.| Applegarth v. Colley^[42], to which some allusion has already been made, but which is specially important, not only as an authority on the construction of the earlier Statutes of Charles II. and Anne, but also showing the extent to which those statutes were incorporated into 5 & 6 William IV., c. 41. The plaintiff was a subscriber to a horse-race for which the stakes were £2 with £15 added; the whole sum subscribed amounted to less than £50. The plaintiff won the race and sued the defendant with whom the money had been deposited to recover the stakes. The defendant pleaded the above facts as a defence, and the plaintiff demurred. The first point raised by the plea was, that as the race was for under £50 it was illegal under the Statutes of George II.’s reign; but as all horse-racing had been held to be legalised by 3 & 4 Vict., c. 5, this plea could not be supported. But it was also argued that the plea disclosed a good defence, on the ground that it was a suit to recover a sum of money over £10 won by horse-racing, and so could not be maintained by virtue of the Statutes of Charles II. and Anne. Against this it was argued that the Statute of Anne only avoided the security given to repay a debt, and not the contract itself. The judgment of the Court, which was delivered by Baron Rolfe, established the following propositions:—

(a.) That however the law may have stood under the earlier statutes with respect to the avoidance of the contract, the Legislature had virtually decided the question by passing the Statute 5 & 6 William IV., c. 41, it being “impossible to impute to the Legislature an intention so absurd as that the consideration should be good and capable of being enforced until some security is given for the amount, and 13that then the consideration should become bad.” That, therefore, since the passing of this statute, all contracts for the payment of money won at play must be taken to be avoided.

(b.) That in the present case the stakes having been deposited with a stakeholder before the race, there was no contract for the payment of money lost at play, within the meaning of the Statute of Anne: that statute must be read in conjunction with that of Charles II., and was intended to prevent gaming on credit, and not to interfere with playing for ready money.

(c.) That plaintiff was not precluded from recovering by sections 2 and 5 (according to which the loser of £10 or upwards at any one time or sitting may recover it back, and the winner at any one time or sitting of over £10 is subject to heavy penalties) on the ground that by a fair construction of the statutes, the penalties inflicted on “the winner,” &c., only applied where there was a corresponding “loser” of over £10, and in this case the loss of each person was £2 only. It was, however, the Court added, unnecessary to decide that point, as the plaintiff was at any rate entitled to recover the £15, which had been subscribed by a stranger by way of prize to the winner; and the defendant’s plea was bad as having covered too much.

It will be seen that the decision leaves untouched the question as to the right to recover where the stakes amount to £10 each; but it would seem that this question could now only be of importance where a bill or note had been given to the winner for the amount, and the winner sues on that instrument; otherwise any such case would now fall under the Statute 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109 (as to which see post).

Thorpe v. Coleman.

In Thorpe v. Coleman^[43] an action was brought to recover £10, a wager on the Derby. It was sought, in argument for the plaintiff, to upset the decision in Applegarth v. Colley that the statute applied to the contract as well as to the security. Tindal, C. J., in giving judgment, said that as 14to the sums of £10 or upwards the contract was clearly not enforceable, seeing that section 2 of the Act of Anne enabled the loser, who had paid the sum of £10, right to recover it by action. He expressly reserved the question, as to whether the statutes affected bets under £10, that is whether the contracts themselves were void as well as the securities given for payment. But to enable a person to recover what could immediately be recovered back from him would only encourage circuity of action.

It seems, therefore, that the statutes did not apply, provided (1) that the stakes were deposited before the event came off, (2) and that they were not more than £10 each. This view of the matter was adopted in Emery v. Richards,^[44] which was an action to recover a stake of 10s. from a stakeholder deposited to abide the event of a wager upon a foot-race. It was held that neither party could revoke the stakeholder’s authority, as it was a valid wager. “It was not gaming on ticket, because here the money was parted with, nor is it excessive gaming within the Act,” it being for a sum under £10.

It must not be forgotten that under the present state of the law (as will appear hereafter) any wager would be void as an agreement, and the stake could be recovered from the stakeholder by the depositor. But the point of importance under the Statute 5 & 6 William IV., c. 41, is whether a wager when forming the consideration for a bill of exchange would be an illegal consideration and so a defective title.

Cheque for gaming debts incurred abroad.

It does not appear to have been decided how far a cheque or promissory note given for a gaming debt incurred abroad can be sued upon in this country, provided they be not void or illegal in the country where they are incurred. It would seem clear that any such cheque would not be given for an illegal consideration within the Statute of William IV. The Statute of Anne, on which that statute is founded, containing as it does penal provisions, could only have reference to gaming in this country. The case of Quarrier v. Coulston^[45] seems at first sight an authority for the suggestion 15that an action on such a cheque could be maintained. In that case, however, the greater part of the sum for which the I O U was given was for money lent for gaming at the public Baden gaming tables, the presumption being that such gaming was legal: while the small balance was made up of money won at cards in sums of less than £10 at each sitting; so that the transaction would not have been illegal under the Statute of Anne. On principle it would seem that the lex loci contractus would govern the matter, i.e., the place where the gaming debt was incurred. But later on in this work, p. 68, it is suggested that the words of section 18 of 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, “no action shall be brought,” etc., introduce the lex fori. If an action on a wager made abroad cannot be maintained it is difficult to see how an action could be brought on a cheque given in respect of such wager.

Loans for gaming purposes.

(5.) The Statute of Anne avoided all securities for money knowingly lent for gaming or betting or advanced at the time and place of such gaming to any person so gaming or betting, or that should during such gaming or betting so play or bet. The following propositions would seem to explain the law as to money lent for gaming purposes.

(a.) As already explained the statute avoids the contract as well as the security.

(b.) It only applies to money lent for gaming or betting on games and horse races.

(c.) Therefore money lent to a person knowing that he is going to apply it in such ways cannot be recovered; this seems to be recognised in ex parte Pyke.^[46] The statute makes it illegal.

(d.) The words of the statute seem to establish an irrebuttable presumption that money advanced during play (including, of course, during a race meeting) to any one who at the same sitting or meeting (the words “during such play” seem to point to this) should take part in such games or betting was knowingly advanced for that purpose.

16(e.) The statute does not apply to money advanced to pay debts already incurred.

Money lent for paying a gaming debt.

In ex parte Pyke^[47] a question arose as to the right to recover money lent to enable the borrower to pay off a gaming debt. A employed B as his agent to back horses for him, which horses lost. B at A’s request paid the bets in the settlement at Tattersall’s, taking A’s promissory notes for the amount. A became bankrupt and B claimed to prove in the bankruptcy, not upon the notes, but for the money thus advanced. The registrar allowed the proof, and the trustees appealed. The Statutes of Anne and William IV. apply not only to money won by gaming, but to securities given to repay “any money knowingly lent or advanced for such gaming or betting as aforesaid, or lent or advanced at the time and place of such play, to any person or persons so gaming or betting as aforesaid.” It was argued for the trustee that this was a debt for an illegal consideration within the above quoted words, as according to Applegarth v. Colley the statute applied to the contract, and not only to the security, also that on the authority of Higginson v. Simpson the whole transaction was in the nature of a wager. The Court held that as the money had been advanced after the bets had been made, it could be recovered: but that it would have been different had it been lent with a view to gaming.

(f.) The statute does not apply to money lent for gaming abroad^[48].

(g.) Of course money advanced to enable a person to play any unlawful game as hazard, as in McKinnell v. Robinson^[49] or for unlawful gaming within 17 & 18 Vict., c. 38, s. 4, cannot be recovered^[50].

Test of illegality.

It is sometimes difficult to determine whether a transaction, to some extent mixed up with an illegal transaction, is so inseparable from it as to be within the statute.

Simpson v. Bloss.

In Simpson v. Bloss^[51] it was laid down that the real test whether a demand connected with an illegal transaction is 17capable of being enforced at law, was, whether plaintiff requires any aid from the illegal transaction to establish his case. The plaintiff laid an illegal wager with B in which the defendant assumed a part. The plaintiff won. Plaintiff, expecting that B would pay by a certain time, advanced to defendant his share of the winnings to which he was entitled by his agreement by plaintiff. B became insolvent and never paid the bet.

Held that as plaintiff could not establish his case without the aid of the illegal wager, he could not recover.

Liability of partners in illegal firm to account.

In Sharp v. Taylor^[52] the Court drew a distinction between enforcing an illegal contract, and enforcing a subsidiary contract arising therefrom. They held that although a partnership might have been formed to carry out an illegal object which the Court would not aid in effecting, yet one partner who has received moneys which have been realised in the illegal business, cannot set up the illegality in answer to a claim by his co-partner for an account.

But this case was subject to some unfavourable criticism by the late Master of the Rolls in the case of Sykes v. Beadon.^[53] This was a case of a society not registered under the Companies Act, which the Master of the Rolls held was illegal as infringing that Act, though his decision on that point was overruled by the Court of Appeal in Smith v. Anderson.^[54]

His lordship also was of opinion that it was illegal as infringing the Lottery Acts. The object of the suit was to have the trusts of the society administered by the Court. But his lordship held that as the society was illegal, it was impossible that its objects could be carried out by the Court. Even supposing a suit were framed for the object of putting an end to the society and dividing the assets, he thought it very doubtful whether the reasoning in Sharp v. Taylor was correct, that because an illegal transaction is closed, that therefore a Court of Equity is to interfere in dividing the proceeds of the illegal transaction.

18In the case of Beeston v. Beeston.^[55] Plaintiff had paid money to defendant to bet with on their joint account, plaintiff to receive a share of the winnings. Defendant won, and gave plaintiff a cheque in payment of his share. The cheque was dishonoured, and plaintiff sued defendant on it. It was urged for the defendant that it was a contract by way of gaming, and that the cheque was given to secure the moneys won thereby, and was therefore a void security, both under 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, and 5 & 6 William IV., c. 41. The Court held that the plea was bad and the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the ground that the consideration for the cheque was entirely distinct from the wagering. Sharp v. Taylor was cited with approval as showing that one partner cannot set up the illegality of a transaction against a co-partner and thereby retain the whole of the profits arising from that transaction.

It was remarked by Pollock, B., that the two statutes quoted only applied to contracts and securities as between the parties to the wager.

This case will be referred to again when we come to deal with the rights of principal and agent;^[56] and in the Chapter on Gaming Houses the question of illegal partnership is fully discussed (p. 162).

II. The consequences of an instrument being given for an illegal consideration.

Law as to illegal consideration.

Bills and notes.

The general rule is that if A accepts a bill drawn upon him by B, or gives him a promissory note, for an illegal consideration, the instrument no doubt is entirely void as between A and B, so that the latter cannot sue the former upon it; still if B transfers the instrument by endorsement or otherwise to C, who takes without notice that it was originally given for an illegal consideration, and gives value for it, C may sue all the prior parties and recover upon it. The chief difference that such illegality makes to C is, that a presumption is raised that C is the agent for the original holder, i.e., that the indorsement to him is presumed to be merely a means of evading the law and enforcing the 19originally illegal contract.^[57] |Burden of proof is on transferee.| Consequently the rule is that the burden of proof lies on the transferee of showing that he took the instrument bonâ fide, i.e., without notice of the illegality, and that he gave value for it. Moreover, the illegality would affect the interests of a transferee if at the time of the transfer the bill were overdue. Before the late Bill of Exchange Act, it was commonly said that an indorsee of an |Overdue bill.| overdue bill took it subject to all the equities attaching to the bill. Thus, if a bill were obtained from the acceptor by fraud or undue influence, or given for an illegal consideration, those were equities between the original parties which would prevent the instruments being enforced as between them; but would not affect a bonâ fide transferee for value. The fact, however, of a bill being overdue would be sufficient notice of the infirmity to prevent his being a bonâ fide holder. |45 & 46 Vict., c. 61.| The new Bill of Exchange Act^[58] leaves the law practically unchanged, excepting in phraseology. |“Holder in due course.”| For “bonâ fide holder” is substituted the expression “holder in due course.”

By section 29, the holder in due course is defined to be (1) a person who takes a bill not overdue and without notice of dishonour, if any; (2) and takes it in good faith and for value, and at the time the bill was negotiated to him he had no notice of any defect of title of the person who negotiated it.

The expression “defect of title,” which occurs in this section, is substituted for the older and more cumbrous one of “equity attaching,” &c. By section 29, the title of a person who negotiates the bill is “defective” when he obtains the bill or acceptance thereof by fraud duress (“force or fear” in Scotland), or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration (which includes a gaming debt).

Defect of title shifts burden of proof.

By section 30, the holder is presumed to be a holder in due course until the contrary is proved; but in that event the burden of proving that value has been given for the bill and in good faith, is shifted on to the holder. See Tatham v. Hasler.^[59]

Overdue bill.

20By section 36, an overdue bill is negotiated subject to all defects of title affecting it.

The result of these enactments, stated in the language of the law at the present day, seems to be shortly as follows:—

(1.) A bill or note accepted or made for a gaming debt (such as is dealt with by the Statute of Anne) is subject to a defect in title.

(2.) If such instrument be overdue, any transfer is made subject to such defect.

(3.) The holder must in all cases, to entitle himself to sue when once the illegality has been proved, show that he took the bill or note bonâ fide and for value.

Absence of consideration not a defect.

As will be seen by reference to any work on Bills of Exchange, mere absence of consideration does not constitute a defect of title: consequently the indorsee for value of an overdue accommodation bill can recover on the bill from the acceptor.

Nor is a void consideration.

In Fitch v. Jones^[60] the question was raised as to whether a consideration not illegal but merely void by Act of Parliament constituted an “equity.” It was an action on a promissory note by the indorsee against the maker. Defendant pleaded that the note was given by him to one C in payment of a debt on the amount of hop duty in 1854, the bet being made since the passing of 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109. It was not an illegal consideration within 5 & 6 William IV., as the bet was not on a game or pastime. A question was raised at the trial as to whether the plaintiff had given value for the note when endorsed to him. The judge directed the jury that the onus was on the defendant of proving that no value was given. On this ruling the substantial question in the case was raised before the Court, viz., whether the voidness of the consideration had the same effect as illegality, in throwing the burden on to the indorsee (i.e., the plaintiff) of showing that he took the note for value and without notice. The Court held that the consideration was merely void by 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, and not illegal; and that this had 21not the effect of raising the presumption that the plaintiff took the note without value.

In Lilley v. Rankin^[61] the same ruling was applied to cheques given in payment in respect of gambling transactions in stocks.

Questions have sometimes arisen upon what amounts to notice of the illegality, which, as has been seen, a holder of a bill is sometimes called upon to disprove. On this subject reference should be made to works on Bills of Exchange. It seems that there need be no express or precise notice, but that any circumstance of suspicion which ought to have put the holder upon enquiry is sufficient. |What notice is sufficient.| Thus, in Soulby v. Portarlington,^[62] defendant was acceptor of a bill for £1,000, payable to one Aldridge, who was keeper of a gaming house, for money lost at play. It was endorsed to one Brooke, who discounted it with Soulby & Co., wine merchants, the plaintiffs in the action, with whom Brooke, a retail wine dealer, had dealings. The plaintiffs advanced £700 on the bill, agreeing to deliver £300 in wine. Soulby commenced an action in Ireland on the note. The defendant instituted a suit in the Court of Chancery in England to restrain the plaintiffs from proceeding with the action, on the ground that it was given for a gambling debt. Held that the facts were such as to put the plaintiffs on enquiry as to what the origin of the bill was, especially as it was not denied by the plaintiffs in their affidavits that they knew that Aldridge was the keeper of a gambling house. That the Court had clearly jurisdiction to restrain the plaintiffs (who were resident in England) from proceeding with their action in Ireland, and also to order the bill to be delivered up to be cancelled.

Hawker v. Hallewell, 3 Findley. 3 Sm. & G.

The case of Hawker v. Hallewell^[63] is a good illustration of cases where the transferee will not be held to have taken with notice, and also of cases where the transferor by his conduct estops himself from alleging the illegality of the original consideration. |Assignee of bond.| In Hawker v. Hallewell^[63] the plaintiff gave a bond in 1841 to one Jenkins to secure repayment of 22a betting debt; at least, this was assumed for the purposes of argument, though the evidence did pot prove it. Jenkins assigned the bond and a policy of assurance to a bank. Plaintiff, in June, 1848, made a proposal to the bank that the bond and policy should be given up, and that the existing debt, together with a further advance, should be secured by mortgage on some reversionary property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that he had given notice to the bank that the bond was given for a gaming debt. The plaintiff, in 1853, assigned all his property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, and now filed a bill to administer the trusts. The Chief Clerk disallowed the claim of the bank. The plaintiff contended that the bond was void under 9 Anne, c. 14, which had not been repealed by 5 & 6 William IV., so far as regards bonds. 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, which repealed so much of the Statute of Anne as was not repealed by 5 & 6 William IV., was not retrospective. The Vice-Chancellor decided on the facts that the bank had taken the bond without notice of the original consideration. He also held that, although the operative part of the Statute of William IV. only applied to negotiable securities, yet the recitals included bonds and securities of every kind; so that an obligee was within the equity of the statute, and that, on the principle of Equity follows the Law, a bonâ fide assignee of a bond for valuable consideration would be treated in the same way as a bonâ fide holder of a bill of exchange. But there was a further ground on which his honour decided in favour of the |Estoppel of obligor.| bank—that the plaintiff by his proposal in 1848 had held out to the bank that the bond was a valid security and that on the principle of Pickard v. Seears^[64] he could not be heard to set up its invalidity. This latter point seems to be the same as that on which Edwards v. Dick^[65] was decided, viz., the ordinary principle of estoppel—that if one person by his acts or representations induces another person to believe in the existence of a certain state of facts, and acting on such belief to enter into a contract with him, he cannot be heard to say that those facts do not exist.

Pleading illegality.

23Of course, the burden of proving the illegality of the consideration lies on the person who sets it up, on the principle that he who alleges the affirmative must prove it. This was clearly recognised by the Court in Fitch v. Jones.^[66] By the Rules of Court, 1883, facts showing illegality either by Statute or Common Law must be specially pleaded. It seems, too, at any rate under the old system of pleading, that it was not sufficient for defendant to plead a fact showing illegality, but he must also aver that plaintiff gave no value for the bill, although the illegality once established would raise a presumption to that effect.^[67]

Admission in pleadings enough to shift burden of proof.

It seems that in order to throw the burden of proof on to the shoulders of an indorsee, it was not sufficient that the illegality should be admitted on the pleadings; it must be proved in evidence. Thus in Edmunds v. Grove^[68] in an action by the indorsee against the maker of a note. Plea, that the note was made for a gaming debt, and indorsed to plaintiff without consideration and with notice. To this plaintiff replied denying the notice and absence of consideration without denying the illegality. Held, that although the pleadings by not putting in issue the illegality admitted it, still that had not the effect of throwing the burden of proof on to the plaintiff that he took without notice and for good consideration. Presumptions or inferences of fact could only be drawn by the jury from facts proved before them. The issues only, and not the pleadings, were before the jury. But now by the Bill of Exchange Act, s. 30 (2) it is sufficient that the illegality should be admitted or proved.

The exact nature of the consideration should be stated.

It is always advisable, particularly where a plea of illegality is set up, to state fully the circumstances under which the contract or security is affected with illegality. Thus in Bolton v. Coghlan^[69] plaintiff sued as indorsee of a note made by defendant. The latter pleaded that it was made for money lost at play.

24The evidence showed that defendant lost money at play to one Aldridge, and accepted a bill for the amount drawn by Aldridge. Aldridge indorsed to Knight. It was then agreed between defendant and Aldridge that defendant should in substitution for the bill give Knight his note of hand for the amount Knight indorsed to plaintiff.

Held that as the plea implied that the note was originally given for a gaming debt, whereas it was really only a substituted agreement, the defendant should not be allowed to take plaintiff by surprise and go into evidence of the subsequent agreement.

But under the Rules of Court the judge at the trial has power to allow amendments in the pleadings upon terms as to costs or otherwise.^[70]

Action against indorser.

The statute only affects the liability of the acceptor of a bill or maker of a note given for a gaming debt. It does not prevent the indorsee suing the indorser where the indorsement was, as between them, for a legal consideration: the statute leaves the law, as settled in Edwards v. Dick,^[71] untouched.

Deeds for illegal consideration.

(2.) Another consequence of the consideration being declared illegal is, that although the absence of consideration does not affect a deed, an illegal consideration avoids it. It seems, too, from Hawker v. Hallewell,^[72] that a bond is within the equity of the Statute of William IV. For the general authorities on the subject of Bonds and Deeds given for an illegal consideration, the reader should refer to Smith’s Leading cases under Collins v. Blantern.

Contracts divisible and indivisible.

(3.) Again, if part of the consideration for which an instrument is given be illegal, the whole is vitiated.

But here a distinction must be drawn between contracts that are divisible and those that are indivisible.

Hay v. Ayling.

Hay v. Ayling^[73] is an example of an indivisible contract. In 1848 the defendant owed one A £100 on a bet on a horse-race. A was also indebted to the plaintiff. A by arrangement drew a bill on the defendant for the amount 25which the defendant accepted and was indorsed by A to plaintiff. The bill was dishonoured and the plaintiff at defendant’s request gave him further time and took from him a renewed acceptance, knowing at that time that the original acceptance was given for a gaming debt. Held (1) That the fact of there being an additional consideration for the bill sued upon (i.e. the giving of time) would not be an answer to the plea of illegality, as illegality in any part of the consideration is sufficient to avoid the contract. (2) That the plaintiff having notice of the illegality could not recover as a bonâ fide holder. (3) That the bills were avoided not by 8 & 9 Vict., c. 109, s. 18 (which statute, as we shall see hereafter, only avoids wagering contracts without making them illegal), but by 5 & 6 William IV., c. 41. It must at the same time be admitted that this view of the matter was not adopted in Bubb v. Yelverton.^[74] |Bubb v. Yelverton.| This was a summons in an administration suit to determine the legality of a claim on a bond given by the Marquis of Hastings. Having got into racing difficulties, and being unable to pay his debts, his creditors threatened to bring the matter before the Jockey Club and have the Marquis posted at Tattersall’s as a defaulter. To avoid this the Marquis arranged to secure the payment of certain sums to his creditors by bonds with sureties. Lord Romilly decided in favour of the claims, on the ground that the consideration for the bonds was not so much the existence of a betting debt, but the forbearance of the creditors to bring the matter before the Jockey Club. It is, however, submitted that the bonds were void as having been given partially for an illegal consideration, viz., a series of gaming debts. |Contract divisible.| On the other hand, as an instance of a divisible contract, |Clayton v. Dilley.| in Clayton v. Dilley^[75] the defendant authorised plaintiff to bet for him at the Epsom races. Plaintiff made two bets of £100 each, which were illegal under the Statute of Anne, and another of £5, which was admitted to be legal; all of them were lost, and paid by the plaintiff, who sued to recover from defendant. The Court held that he could recover the £5, 26but not the 200. It is obvious the commissions to make the different bets were separable.

So in Lyne v. Siesfield^[76] a broker sued his client for money paid to his use, to which defendant pleaded that the money was paid in respect of differences on certain contracts by way of gaming relating to the public funds and railway shares. Held, that as the plea was bad in parts, and had been united in one, the whole was bad.

Remedy of person who has given bond or note, &c.

III. It seems that a person who has given a bond, bill, or note to secure payment of a gambling debt, can bring an action in the Chancery Division to have the security delivered up to be cancelled, and also under the whole practice could obtain an injunction against suing at law to recover upon it.^[77] But since the Judicature Act,^[78] no proceeding in the High Court can be restrained by injunction, though probably this does not affect an injunction against suing in any other court. In some of the cases referred to, the action restrained was brought in an Irish Court; in such a case probably an injunction would lie even since the Judicature Act. In the case of the acceptor of a bill or maker of a note being compelled to pay the amount to a bonâ fide holder, |Section 2 of Act.| section 2 of the Act provides that he can recover from the drawer or payee for money “paid for and on account of the person to whom the bill was originally given upon such illegal consideration.”

In Gilpin v. Clutterbuck^[79] the plaintiff had been compelled to pay an indorsee of a bill which he had accepted in payment of a gaming debt; and it was held that he was entitled by the statute to sue the original payee in an action of “assumpsit,” and was not bound to sue in “debt under the statute.”

The bill bore interest on the face of it. Held that plaintiff was entitled to recover the interest from the defendant as well as the principal sum. Secus if the bill does not on the face of it provide for the payment of interest.

Lynn v. Bell.

27In Lynn v. Bell^[80] the plaintiff, in payment of certain bets on horse-races, gave to the defendant three cheques on the plaintiff’s bankers, payable to bearer; two of these were indorsed by the defendant and by his indorsees to third parties, and a third was indorsed by the defendant alone in payment of a betting debt; all were eventually paid by the plaintiff’s bankers. Plaintiff sued the defendant to recover under this section the amount of the three cheques. It was urged for the defendant (1) That the cashing of the cheques by the plaintiff’s bankers was not a payment of a bill or note within the statute. (2) That he was entitled to set off the amount of a cheque drawn by one A in his favour, and indorsed by him to the plaintiff in payment of a betting debt, and for which the plaintiff had received cash at A’s bankers. Held (1) as stated above, that the term “bill” in the statute includes “cheque.” (2) That the payment by the plaintiff’s bankers of the amount of the cheques drawn by the plaintiff to the holders was in effect a payment by the plaintiff himself. “He pays when his banker pays on his account.” A cheque is a direction to pay so much money of the drawer, “actually or assumedly in the possession of the drawee.” It would be different if, in payment of a betting debt, the plaintiff had drawn a bill of exchange which was subsequently paid by the acceptor, as “it is not necessary nor usual that there should be money of the drawers in the hands of the drawee of a bill of exchange.” The language of this part of the judgment would seem to leave it an open question, if the drawer of the cheque had at the time no assets at the bank; or in the case of a bill of exchange being given instead of a cheque, if the acceptor recovered the amount from the drawer, whether this would not amount to a “payment” by the drawer within the section. (3) As to the set-off, the same reasoning was applied. The amount of the cheque was not paid by the defendant or his bankers, but by A’s bankers, consequently it could not have been recovered in an action by the defendant under this section, and could not be made the subject of a set-off. |What instruments are within the statute.| As to the instruments that are 28within the statute in the above case of Hawker v. Hallewell^[81] the Vice-Chancellor seemed clearly of opinion that bonds were within the equity of the statute. In the above case of Lynn v. Bell^[82] it was held that “bills” in the statute included “cheques.” In the judgment are to be found some instructive observations as to the similarities and differences between cheques and ordinary bills of exchange. In Parsons v. Alexander^[83] the plaintiff sued on a cheque and also on an I O U, both given for a gaming debt; as the cheque was unstamped the plaintiff relied on the I O U. But as an I O U is not an instrument or security for a debt, but only evidence of it, it was treated as void under 8 & 9 Vict., c. 108, and not as illegal under 5 & 6 William IV., c. 41. See, too, Quarrier v. Coulston^[84].