The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-30 00:00:00

HODSON V. TVVELL

This was a case argued a few days ago by Mr. HUMP/IRIEs
and Mr. HILL. It was an action for the recovery of ‘2.0/., which
was deposited as the stakes in a gamo at cricket between the
Warwick and another club. On the second day of playing, in
consequence of some dispute, one of the parties declined to play,
and the other party claimed as having won the game.
This morning Mr. Baron BAILEY delivered the judgment of
the Court. They considered that the game of cricket came
under the description of games that were contemplated by the
statute of Anne, and, therefore, that any stake upon
such a game was an illegal one. Though the Act
only mentioned cards, dice, tennis, and bowls in the
first clause, the Court were of opinion, that the words " other
games," in the second and third clauses embraced the game of
cricket. There were many cases reported where they had been
held to include foot races, and other games in which bodily
exertion was necessary. The intention of the Legislature was
clear—that no bets to a greater amount than 101. should be paid
—that if a person lost a greater sum, he might refuse to pay
it ; then surely the case here was stronger where the money was
in the hands of a third party, to whom the plaintiff gave notice
that he was not to part with it to the defendant. It was clear
that if he had done so, the plaintiff would have had his
remedy against him. It had been suggested that the ac-
tion should have been one of debt, but as this was not
an action against the winner of the money, there was no
reason why the form of it should be altered, or that it should
have been commenced within three months. It had also been
said that if this was an illegal bet, the deposit was also illegal,
and could not be recovered ; but there was the case of Cos.
tello v. Jackson, which was a much stronger one than the pre-
sent, for the money had actually been lost, yet the Court held
that the loser had a right to maintain an action for
the recovery of the money. Another difficulty had
been started, viz., that this transactions was not on
one day, or as the Act said, "at one sitting." That had been
decided on many occasions, for it was only one transaction, and
the money depended upon not one day's play, but upon the
whole, so that it was to be considered as either lost or won at
one time. Judgment must therefore be for the plaintiff.

The other Judges concurred with the Learned Baron, and
judgment given accordingly.

COURT OF REVIEW.-(THIS DAY.)

EX PARTE GORDON IN RE MABERLY.

Mr. MONTAGU stated, that Mr. William Gordon had pur-
chased the debts of various persons in Scotland, creditors of
the estate of Mr. Maberly, to the extent of one or two parts,
and now applied that he might be permitted to prove.
The assignees consented to an order not interfering with the
certificate or choice of assignees.—Order granted.

DIED.—On the 30th inst., in Princes-street,
Hanover-square, /11,j1r-General Sir Jc HN AlAtcomg,
G. C. 8., K. L. S.

The novel circumstance of the failure of one
of the first legal establishments in the largest of the Inns
of Court, has been a source of wonder to many, and of
serious loss to not a few. _ _

MR. WILBERFORCE is at present on a visit
at Southampton. His 'opinions upon the present state Si
the West India question would be rather interesting.