Case ID: johns_10/html/0412-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Campbell against Richardson and others.
    NEW YORK,
    Oct. 1813.
    Where A. set Ehnot’at!'kaiid it was agreed that B. should cents for evercth'butTf,b" hit the mark pay him 2o hei'r'to "be^a 5egd' that " b’ having hit the maíiítaiiT^an a‘'to1 recover die 20 dollars,
    IN ERR.OR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Richard-• son> Taft, M‘Dowell and Todd sued Campbell, before the justice, and declared that whereas the defendant, on the fill of Jonuary, 1813, at, &c. set up a mark, the size of a horse, at the distance of 60 rods, for the plaintiffs to shoot at, at 25 cents f°r each shot, and which if hit by them the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of 20 dollars; that the plaintiffs did shoot at the mark so set up by the defendant, for which they jointly paid to him 25 cents, for each and every shot made by tiiem; and that the plaintiffs hit the mark so set up, by reason whereof, &c. claiming the 20 dollars which the defendant promised to pay, &c. The agreement, as stated in the declaration, was proved, and it was also proved that after the plaintiffs had hit the mark, the defendant said he would pay them the 20 dollars ; though some question was made whether the ball had not glanced before it hit the mark. Several witnesses testified that another person was concerned with the plaintiffs in the transaction. There was evidence also that he was a minor, and his father, testified that he did not give him permission to join with the plaintiffs ; but that he shot on his own account. The justice was of opinion that the plaintiffs could not maintain their action, if any other person was a partner, or interested with them; but he left the question to the jury whether the person mentioned was a partner or not.
    
      The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, for 20 dollars, on which the justice gave judgment.
   Per Curiam.

Whether another person, n~t joined in this suit, was a partner with the plaintiWs in the transaction, was a question of fact proper to be decided by- a jury; and though their verdict was against the weight of evidence, we do not interfere on that ground.

If a wager of any kind is to be recognised as valid in law, the one made in this case, is, perhaps, as harmless, and liable to as little objection, as any that could be made. It has long been matter of regret with courts of justice, that wagers should have been so far countenanced as to permit actions to be sustained for their recovery. The expression of this regret, however, is accompanied with the admission that the common law does recognise some wagers as valid; and we do not discover any solid reason for saying the present belongs to the class of excepted cases. Strong and cogent reasons might be urged to the proper tribunal, for aa alteration of the law on this subject; but as the law now stands, we do not feel ourselves authorized to say that the plaintiffs have no right to recover in the present ease. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       See Acts, sess. 24. c. 46. s. 1. and 2. Sess. 25. c. 44. Cowp. 33. 729. 1 Term Rep. 56. 2 Term Rep. 615. 710. 3 Term Rep 697. 4 Bl. Com. 171. 6 Term Rep. 499. 10 East, 22. 2 Bos. & Pull. 51. 2 H. Bl. 43. 4 Term Rep. 1. 4 Johns. Rep. 426. 7 Johns. Rep. 440. 8 Johns. Rep. 454.