The Express.
London, England, 1855-06-05 00:00:00

BATH BLBCTION.

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 5, 1855.

.....
gratb3 intelligence.
EQUITY COURTS.—JuNz 4.
SUOMI lIMCIELAIMILOIIIII J. •111•11 T.
1021211 11. 1063.
This snit was heard In past on Saturday, sni stood ever
until today for bir. Folwyes reply.
iareholder in the Mosher
The plaintiff was an evildoer sl-
villa Gardens, near Onvesend. The principal defendants
were the present directors; one other defendant was a large
shareholder, made a defendant to npresent the other
shareholders in the company. The questions were whether
the plaintiff hsd forfeited his shires, and whether certain
sets of which the plaintiff complained were imnroper.
Mr. Selwyn was for the plaintiff; Mr. J. H. Palmer was
for the directors, the principal defendants; Mr. Whitbread
for the shareholder who had not interfered in the questions.
At the elms of the argument this day,
The Vico Chancellor said the principal one was as to the
costs, sad as the plaintiff had taken a` rincipal part in the
acts of which he complained, he ougnot to be allowed his
costs, but should not pay coats.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JUNE 4.
IMMO' DI ILUICO.-11170111 LOU unreal.. AND 711W11C111 CMS,
RIMS, Mi. AM ceourroc.
PARSONS IP. LLIIIANDIL—BILLr
AADII.
This was an action to recover 651. 14e. on en amount
Mated, to which the defendant pleaded that the money had
bass won at gaming at billiards. It appeared that the dr
Minot, who was • minor, met) the plaintiff at a public
billiard room. They played "pool," at which the defend-
ant lost N. or 91., and subsequently billiards, the defendant
as the coating= of the play having lost altogether 651. 144..
lee which he gave his I. 0. 11., the subject of the action. It
was shown at the trial that there was no imputation of
whir play, and that the money was won at the ordinary
game of billiards. Mr. Justice Zile, who tried the ease,
left it to the jury to say whether the money bad been
mos at billiards, and directed them, if they did,
II lad for the defendant. The jury answered the learned
judge's question in the affirmative, and returned • verdict
for the defendant. A rule was subsequently obtained by
Kr. Collier to enter the verdict for the plaintiff non ob-
stituto veredicto, and for a new trial on the ground of mit-

direction.
Mr. Rowe and Mr. Taprell on Saturday
showswed cause
against the rule, contending that the plea
se
to the action, as the contract was null and void under
the 18th section of the Sth and 9th Victoria, e. 109, which
enacted "that all contnets or agreements, whether by
or in writing, by way of gaming and wagering, shall
parole
sll and void."
Mr. Collier, who now appeared in su of the rule,
pport
urged that the contract did not 011119 within the enacting
portion of the section, but within the limbo which pro-
vided "that this *nutmeat shall not be doomed to apply
any subscription, or contribution, or agreane.tnt, to sub-
to
scribe or contribute for, or towards any plate, prise, or sum
of money to be awarded to the
=ewes or inn
ers of
any
lawful game, sport, pastime, He submitted
that billiards was • lawful game, and that if any number of
persons agreed to play it for a sum of money to be paid to
the winner, it came within the proviso, which was equally
applicable to billiards as to horse races, foot races, or any
other lawful gams. He would contend that there must not
of necessity be a greater number than two to subscribe or
contribute, but he would admit that if ether parties camee
into the room and backed the players accordiog to th
fluctuations of the game, that would be wagering within the
prohibitory part of the enactment.
Lord Campbell—You say it is not gaming when the par-
ties cgree to the amount of the stakes before the commence-
ment of the game ?
Mr. Collier—Yee, my lord.
Lord Campbell—You may say it is not wagering, but that
it is not gaming yon will, I think, have considerable cliff
salty is showing, for the word " gaming " seems to me to
take in those actually engaged in the play as well as those
wagering on it.
Mr. Collier—But I contend t is a lawl 'game as much
as horse-racing or foot-racing, and as such fu
comes within the

prinks/.
Lord Campbell—Billiards is a lawful game, but there
may be gaining on • lawful game.
Mr. Justice Coleridge-1 cannot see where is the contri-
bution. Suppose there is • bet of 101. between two parties,
and one loses and the other receives, where is the contribu-
tion?
Mr. Collier cited the judgment of the Court of Common
Pleas in 11 Batty and Marryat " in support of hie argument.
Lord Campbell, in giving judgment, said he was of
opinion that the verdict should stand for the defendant, for
the plea was clearly • good plea framed under the 18th
section of S and 9 Vic., o. 109. On he second ground on
which the rule had been grantetd, be thought the
direction of the learned judge at the trial was
correct, and that there was abundant evidence to
support the finding of the jury. When he looked
at the 18th section of the act, he felt it clearly applied to a
bet made by players in • lawful game. Billiards he took to
be lawful, as well as a foot race, but there might be gaming
en a lawful game. The evidence showed that the money
had been lost at playing billiards in the usual manner, the
players staking a certain sum on the issue of the game.it be
He
took it that this was dearly gaming. Then, could
brought within the proviso ? He was clearly of opinion
both it
could not, for he thought the enacting part included
gaming and wagering, and was not confined to wagers by
bystanders, but was applicable to the bets and stakes of those
engaged. As to the moles, he was of opinion it would road
in conjunction with she intorpretatioa be put on the enact-
ing part, and applied to Mee where there was an agree-
ment to contribute to any prize to be awarded to the winner
in any lawful game, sport. or pastime. But for the case of
"Batty v. Manyatt," in the Common Pleas, he should
have thought that it should be a subscription for a plate,
but they need not find fault with the decision of the court
is that ease for it was consistent with the construction
whisk this court put on the section that the money must be
dopoilted with a stakeholder. Mr. Collier's contention
could not be admitted, for it would allow gaming to any
Indefinite amount—players might go on playing double or
quits till one was utterly ruined, which was inconsistent
with' the enacting part, sad would .render the proviso
wholly destructive of the enacting part of the section.
Mr. Judos Coleridge was of the same opinion. The
onesdon being, if this case came within the proviso they
bad na art of the
turally to consideg to what the enacting p
clause extended. He woo of opinion it extended to all
gaming or wagering, whether the game with respect to
which it was made was lawful or not; but the proviso was con-
fined to lawful games. He should have thought at first sight
that the proviso solely applied to contributors to sweepstakes
to be awarded to a winner ; but it might be that one of the
subscribers might be one of the parties, or even the winner.
Still there must be either a subecriptioa, or contribution,
or agr, eement to subscribe and contribute, and when two
persons were playing together on the success of a gams, it
mild not be said that they were either subscribing or agree-
ing to contribute, sad, therefore, the case did not come
within the proviso.
Mr. Justice Brie and Mr. Justice Crompton concurred.
Judgment for the defendant,
and rule for new trial dis-
chargod.
Mr. Justice Wighttaan sat at nisi prius, but no case of
public interest was tried.

COURT OF ElCHRtAupa.. ...
SMOGS IS NAINIO,-127011 Mt LOAD CIDO LION, AND DAMNS
ALDINION, MATT, AND NA TIN.
011.£111 V. WILOUGHTOX.--lIMIT INDIA couttressoffs.
JODOMMINT.
The plaintiff and defendant in this cue are in the Nast
India Company's service, and °Moen in the sth Madras
Cavalry, and it appeared they entered into a b
zanonddu by which
lt was agreed they were to pay is
Ali
, their eater (Moor, 4,000 rupees, on oeedition of his retiriag
from the regiment, by which retirement they had obtained
promotion. The defendant not having his quota to pay
Msjor Grant, the plaintiff lent it to Dim, and on his &dim-
ing to refund the amount, he was compelled to take pew
feedings against him. The defendant, at the trial, pleaded
that tee contract was an illegal °onuses, on the ground that
It was not; wfal to bay an officer out of the But India
Company'unit*.
The Lord Chief Baron, in delivering judgment, said the
on Joshed 1a this ease was was the contract alegal or
en egal weahiliti The defendant at the trial pleaded
that the bend lin illegal, and the learned judge who tried
the limn thoughtlhat the admissions put in did not form
zt... Thom bad been a demurrer to that plea, mod a
dm a Sew trial. The plea professed to have been
foonded Mae East India Company's Act. but it bad sot
wade mention of the 49th of Geo. 111., c. 126, which pea&
II bited the sale or resignation for a gratuity of all oats or
commissions. This transsetioa was nothing more Der tem
than a gift to a pawn holding a commission in the Best
India Company's
to
to induce him to leave that ser-
vice. It appeared to hist that if he said the resignation in
this case was not illegal it would be to form a most imps:-
feet view of the mischief which the act was framed to
repress. When an °Mar retired from the service be as
caved a pension or allowance, and it was to be presumed
he retired foe some good and proper reason ; but when be
received a sum of money to procure hie retirement, he wee
corrupted. lie was of opinion that the transaction wee l
illegal, and that the plea was an answer to the action. '
The: opal* of the court was that the defendant was
entitled le 3Olgolat ea the demurrer, but the rule for a
new trial nestle made absolute.
Judgment oessedinly.
The mart
In the remainder of the day in hear-
ing arguments WM from the special paper, which did
not all for a report.
Mr. Bum Pubes NI at Nisi Prins:in the Lords Justices
Court. TIN only which came before the court, pert
beard on eatarisy, was of no interest to the general reader.