The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-04-14
From the London Field.

Got Friend to Do His Gambling For
Him.
From the London Field.
An interesting case touching the law Of
betting came before Mr.. Justice Hawkins,
sitting without jury, on Monday last
The point raised was novel one, namely
under what circumstances one FRIEND can
recover from another money won on bets
made by the latter at the request of the
former, no commission being paid or even
demanded for the service rendered. In
July, 1886, Mr.. Richard VIM, private
gentleman. living near Ellesmere, in Shrop-
shire, was visited by Mr.. G.. f. Lees a gen
tleman residing near Manchester, who also
has rooms in Jermyn street, London. Lees
told Winn that he expected to hear of
good thing from his agent for the Man
chester races, and suggested that VIM
should put something on. Winn assented,
and on July 16 received letter from Lees,
in which he stated he put $40 on a good
thing for Winn and promised to wire
result. On July Is Lees wrote Winn that
he had won 2100 fer him on Magdelen for
the 4l0 invested, and promised to send
check as soon as he received bag belong
ing to him from Vim. The bag was sent
but no check was received.
On August 2 Lees wrote Winn from
bllSuOOi LudU U6 udu uOb lOTkObU6H Uu9
one hundred and suggested that he should
put 910 on two horses he knew of. which
were going to run at the Brighton races.
On August VIM received telegram of
Lees: You have so to 10 Bertha. Bertha
won; will write" On this transaction Lees
won ESQ for VIM, but paid him neither
that sum nor the 9100 previously won,
though he frequently promised to send him
check. Ultimately Mr.. VIM decided to
fnlz fbnNa Aa,z
ever, difficulty in the way of legal action.
There was no contract between the parties,
Lees having made the bets without com
mission or consideration for his trouble,
ana therefore there was no breach OF con-
tract. The only thing to be done under the
circumstances was to bring an action for
money had and received.
Unfortunately for Mr.. VIM he was not
prepared with evidence to prove that Lees
had received the el00, but as TO the $50 won
on Bertha .ees admitted in his answers to
interrogations written questions which are
frequently put to either party before the
case comes into COURT that he had received
1t. Mr.. VIM therefore obtained iudg
ment and cost as to the $50, but not as to
4 the 9l00
Dnring the hearing of the case an interest
ing discussion took place between Mr..
trump, O. C., who appeared for Lees, and
Mr.. Justice Hawkins. Mr.. Crump sub
United that whether the money was received
OF not by Lees in respect of these bets, it
was not recoverable at law by VIM, as it
was the outcome of gaming and wagering
agreement, and the parties were not in the
position Of principal and agent. Mr.. JUS
.ice hawkins as TO this asked why, if Lees
had received the money, should he not hand
~ oVeri Because, replied Mr.. Crump, there
was no consideration to support a contract
& oi agency. as there was in Bridges VS.. Savage
70 .. b., Div. 1868 Mr. Justice Hawkins
Ihen pointed out that there was no wager
as between Lees and Vim, nor was the
plalntitf trying to enforce any such con-
tracts; he was merely suing for money had
f inc received. Mr.. Crump replied that this,
under and Wet. c. 100, was clearly a
NJ wagering debt within the decision Of Bayer
Ns;; Adams t25 l.. J. Oh SAD
de contended that If two persons agreed
ogether to prosecute a gambling transac-
on, and in the result profit arose, and
ne proceeds were recovered by one of two,
IS colleagues could not recover his share
ON hin. As to this contention, it will be
loued that there was no question of sharing
ny profits or losses, the bets being made
molly for Mr.. VIM. Judgment was
#aehvered to the effect we have already
0neateds and it seems not only sound law