or civil injury; and that Division (1) includes (a), (B), and (y), and not much else, because by this time nearly the whole of the Criminal law is statutory.

In order to avoid overlapping, let us confine Division (4) to (8), viz., those agreements which Acts of Parliament have merely withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Courts and refused to allow the Courts to be used for enforcing.

Even so, it is difficult to avoid some confusion and overlapping: for there are some statutes which positively prohibit certain forms of contract, viz., such statutes as the Lottery Act 1698 (10 Will. III, c. 17), and the Gaming Act 1802 (42 Geo. III, c. 119), and the Lotteries Act 1823 (4 Geo. IV, c. 60) there are some statutes which both prohibit certain contracts on pain of a penalty and also contain a clause declaring them void, viz., the Act of 1664 (16 Car. II, c. 7), to restrain "excessive gaming," and the Act of Anne, 1710, (9 Anne, c. 14): there are some statutes which impose a penalty on certain transactions for revenue purposes merely, but without intending to make the contract void, viz., the Excise and Licence Act (6 Geo. IV, c. 81): lastly, there are some statutes which merely make certain contracts void, but without imposing any penalty whatever, or conveying any actual prohibition, viz., the Gaming Act 1845 (8 & 9 Vict., c. 109). It is with these last that we are here principally concerned, and with the others so far only as they provide for the avoidance of contracts.

The Act (16 Car. II, c. 7) enacted that if anyone lost (at once) anything exceeding £100 in playing at or betting on any game or pastime, the agreement to pay was void, and any security for payment was void: the Act also imposed penalties. This Act is repealed by the Gaming Act 1845.

The Act 9 Anne, c. 14, "for the better preventing of excessive gaming" (1710), enacted that if anyone lost £10 (or over) in playing at or betting on "any game" (at once) and paid it, then he might recover the amount by action at

law brought within three months; that all securities for such money won at or on games should be utterly void; and also that all securities for money knowingly lent or advanced for such gaming or betting should be utterly void. The result of which was that even an innocent purchaser for value of such paper money had no remedy. Consequently, this Act

of Anne was amended and partly repealed by the Gaming Acts of 1835 and 1845.

From 1710 to 1835, however, the anti-wagering legislation. was principally concerned with Stock Exchange and insurance transactions. Sir John Barnard's Act 1734 (7 Geo. II, c. 8) was directed against "the infamous practice of stockjobbing"; the sort of transactions it was intended to prohibit were mere wagers on the rise and fall of prices, disguised as purchases and re-sales to be completed at future dates, which practically amounted to agreements to pay differences. stringent were the terms of this Act that it could not fail to interfere with genuine business transactions: at last it was repealed in 1860 (23 Vict., c. 28), since wagering contracts in general had been made void by the Act of 1845.

So

The Life Assurance Act 1774 (14 Geo. III, c. 48) prohibits and makes void all kinds of wagering contracts of insurance (other than marine insurance): it enacts that an insurance on the life of any person or any other event wherein the person on whose behalf the policy is effected has no interest shall be void; and that if he (the assured) has an interest in such life or other event, he shall recover from the insurer no greater sum than the value of his own interest. What amounts to an insurable interest is not specified in the Act; but anyone may have an unlimited insurable interest in his or her own life and in that of the wife or husband. In all other cases an insurable interest is only possible provided the death or other event involves the risk of pecuniary loss to the person to benefit by the insurance policy if the amount of possible loss be limited in fact,

the amount claimable will be limited accordingly; e.g., a creditor has an interest in the life of his debtor, limited to the amount of the debt; a master has an indefinite but still limited interest in the life of his servant. In Castellain v. Preston it was held that a contract of fire insurance was a contract of indemnity merely. The defendant in this case had agreed to sell certain premises but not yet conveyed them, when they were damaged by fire: he then obtained £330 from the London, Liverpool and Globe Insurance Co., in which the premises were insured; and afterwards he obtained the full price, £3,100, from the purchasers (which they were bound to pay). Plaintiff (on behalf of Company) sued defendant for repayment of the £330. It was first held by the Queen's Bench Division that defendant had a right to keep the £330, but on appeal this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal, which held that any contract of fire or marine insurance was merely a contract of indemnity, that the defendant had no right to be more than fully indemnified for the loss actually suffered by him, and that therefore the £330 must be repaid to the Company.

But in Dalby v. India and London Life Insurance Co.2 a different rule was applied to contracts of life insurance. In this case it was held that the contract called "life assurance" was a mere contract to pay a certain sum of money on the death of a person, in consideration of the due payment of a certain annuity during his life, the amount of the annuity being calculated in the first instance according to the probable duration of the life; so that when once fixed it is constant and invariable; and that this species of insurance in no way resembled a contract of indemnity: also that the Life Assurance Act (1774) merely required the insurer to have an interest at the

1 [1883], 11 Q. B. D., C. A. 380.

2 [1854], 15 C. B. 365.

time of effecting the policy, and limited the amount recoverable to the value of that interest.

The Gaming Act 1835,1 was passed in order to amend the Act 9 Anne, c. 14, inasmuch as that Act had expressly made utterly void all notes, bills, bonds or other securities for money or other valuable thing which was either (a) won by playing at or betting on games, or (B) knowingly lent or advanced for such gaming or betting. The amendment consisted principally of deleting the words "utterly void " and substituting the words "deemed to be given for an illegal consideration." Previous to 1835, securities for money lost at (or on) games, or for money lent with a view to gaming or betting, were so utterly void that even. an innocent purchaser for value of such security or negotiable instrument had no remedy. But by the Act of 1835 securities for money won by playing at or betting on games or knowingly lent with a view to such gaming or betting are to be deemed to have been given for an illegal consideration : this means that although the bond or security is void as between the original parties, and of no use to anyone who knew of its tainted origin, yet if the holder can prove himself an innocent purchaser for value, he is protected.

The Gaming Act 1845, though not the last word of legislation on the subject, may be taken as the basis of the existing law as to wagering contracts in general. This Act repealed both the Act of 1664 and so much of the Act of 1710 as had not been altered by the Act of 1835; so that now nothing remains of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 except so much as is re-embodied in the Acts of 1835 and 1845. This Act of 18453 enacted :

"That all contracts or agreements, whether by parol or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering, shall be null and void; and that no suit shall be brought or maintained in any Court of law or equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable 1 5 & 6 Will. IV, c. 41. 28 & 9 Vict., c. 109. 88 & 9 Vict., c. 109, s. 18.

thing alleged to be won on any wager, or which shall have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager shall have been made: Provided always that this enactment shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, for or towards any plate, prize, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game, sport, pastime or exercise."

There is still an important difference between the operations of the two Acts of 1835 and 1845. The Act of 1835 applies to money lost and won by playing at or betting on games and provides that all securities for such money shall be regarded as given upon an illegal consideration: whereas the Act of 1845 applies to wagering contracts generally, and to the contracts themselves merely, by providing that such agreements shall be null and void.

Thus there is a difference between a bet on a cricket match and a bet on the result of a contested election. As between the original parties both are equally void. And if a security be given by the loser of the bet (e.g., a bill of exchange or promissory note), and this paper security come into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, then it will be equally valid in either case, no matter whether the original wager was on a cricket match or on the result of a contested election; because, by the Act of 1835, security given for money lost on games is not utterly void, but deemed to have been upon an illegal consideration; so that if the indorsee of such paper money can show that he gave value for it and knew nothing of its tainted origin, he is entitled to sue and recover upon it.

But if the indorsee of the paper security be not an innocent purchaser for value-in other words, if either he did. not give value for it or he knew of its tainted origin— then it will make a very practical difference whether the original wager was on a cricket match or on the result of a contested election. Two cases will show the separate effects