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.