Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1884-01-24


South Sea Bubble, led to the enactment
of the statute off Geo. III, C. s, in 1874.
This statute declared absolutely void all
contracts upon which any premium
should be given "for liberty TO put up,
upon, or to deliver, receive, accept or
refuse any public or joint stock, or any
public security whatever, or any part,
share or. interest therein, and also all
wagers, and all contracts in the nature
of puts and refusals relating to the then
present or future price or value of any
stock or securities IL fixed penalty
for the making of such contracts, and
also prohibited under penalty the pay
ment or receipt of money "for the
compounding, satisfying, or making up
off any differences for the not deliver
ing, transferring, having or receiving
any public or joint stock, or public Sc
curities, or for the not performing of
any contract or agreement, so stipulated
and agreed to be so performed"
Among the earliest leading cases Of
stOck-gambling, after the enactment of
the act of Parliament, is that of Faikney
vs. Reynous, 4 Burrows, 2O69, tried be-
fore Lord Mansfield in 1867. Faikney
d Richardson were partners in stock
gambling transactions. They lost
$4,000, and the suit was on note given
by the defendant as surety for Rich
ardson for his share of the losses. The
illegality of the transaction was set up
as a defense which Lord Mansfield held
to be insufficient-that while the trans
action was prohibited, it was not ndluR
in sc, and that the giving of the note
was fair and honest transaction as be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant.
This case was followed by Petrie VS..
Hannay, 8 T. r. AIS, decided in 1889.
The plaintiffs testator, with the de-
fendant and others, was engaged, though
broker, in illegal stockjobbing. The
defendant accepted bill drawn on him
for portion of the losses incurred in
their joint operations. He failed to pay
1t, and suit was brought by the broker
against the plaintiffs testator and re-
covery had. This action was brought
by the plaintiff to recover from the de-
fendant the amount paid the broker.
The defense was the illegality of the
transaction. Kanyon, c. j., who dis
sented is Faikney VS.. Reynous, thought
the case could be distinguished from
that, but Butter, j., placed it upon the
same ground, and the defense was held
insufficient.
The doctrine of Faikney VS.. Rey-
nous was frequently questioned in the
English courts, and several early cases
decided in conflict with it. Mitchell vs..
Cockburn, H. Bl. 37s, decided in 1894,
was almost identically the same. The
plaintiff and defendant were engaged
Jointly in illegal insurance business and
lost. They referred accounts to an arbi-
traitor, who found that Cockburn owed
Mitchell. Suit was brought to recover
the amount, and Eyre, c. j., nonsuited
the plaintiff. He referred to Faikney
vs. Reynous and Petrie VS.. Hannay,
and thought they should have been de-
cided otherwise. "Be that as it may"
he said, ''it is sufficient now to say that
these cases 60 one stop short of the di-
rect illegal transaction, but the present
case arises Immediately out of it." In
Faikney VS.. Reynous, "the bond was
given to secure repayment by third
person of bis proportion of the money
paid by the plaintiff In the stock.job-
bing," and in Petrie VS.. Harnnay, "the
money had been paid by Kreebler, and
the action was broughtto reimburse his
executors for the defendants share"
These early cases show, that even in
England, where betting and gambling
contracts were not Illegal or void at
common law, and under the strict con-
struction given an act of Parliament
made in derogation thereto and declar-
ing such contracts NAHUM pr0hi6ituln,
the courts went no further than to en-
force such obligations to the extent of
compelling an accounting for illegal
gains between the Iarticeps eriminis,
and to relieve third persons having by
secondary contract acquired an inter-
: est therein.
Steers vs.. Laskley, CT. r. 81, was also
decided In 1894. The defendant and one
Wilson had been Jointly concerned in
illegal stock -jobbing, and an arbitration
found difference in favor of Wilson
for which he drew his bill on defend
ant, who accepted it in favor of the
plaintiff, who knew the facts of the
case. Plaintiff sued on the bill and was
defeated, Kenyon, G. j., remarking, "If
the plaintiff had lent his money to the
defendent to pay the differences, and
had afterwards received u bill in ques-
ton for that sum, then, according to
Petrie Va. Hannay, he might have re-
covered. But here the bill was given
for those very differences, and there
j. fore Wilson himself could not have en-
forced payment" Nor could the plaint-
iff for he took it with knowledge.
This case was followed in 1898, by