to say that no wager can be enforced at law, though I think it would have been better if they had been originally left to the decision of the jockey club." In that particular case the wager was held invalid on the ground that, under the particular circumstances, its tendency was to obstruct the course of public justice, which is an objection sufficient, as I have already explained in the commencement of the lecture, to invalidate a contract at common law.

policies.

There is, however, one class of wagers besides Wager those on gaming which are invalid by the statute law. I allude to wagers in the shape of policies of insurance. An insurance, as you doubtless are aware, is a contract by which, in consideration of a premium, one or more person or persons assure another person or persons in a certain amount against the happening of a particular event; for instance, the death of an indi vidual, the loss of a ship, or the destruction of property by fire. These three classes of policies, upon ships, lives, and fire, are the most common of occurrence; but there is nothing to prevent insurance against other events; for instance, in Carter v. Boehm, 3 Burr. 1905., one of the most celebrated cases in the Reports, Lord MANSFIELD and the rest of the then Court of Queen's Bench supported a policy of insurance against foreign capture effected in a fortress. Now, this contract of insurance, though one of the most

14 Geo. 3.

c. 48.

beneficial known to the law, since it enables parties to provide against events which no human skill can controul, to provide, for instance, against the ruin of a family by the sudden death of a parent, the ruin of a merchant by the loss of his venture at sea, or of a manufacturer by the outbreak of a fire on his premises, though productive, therefore, of most beneficial consequences to society, yet is very liable to be abused, and made an engine of mere gambling; for instance A. insures B.'s life; i. e. he pays so much a year, or so much in the lump, to some one who is to pay him so much upon B.'s death. If B. owes him money, and his object is to secure himself, it is a bona fide insurance; but, if B. is a mere stranger, in whose life he has no interest, it is a mere wager. In order to prevent the contract of insurance from being thus abused, statute 14 G. 3. c. 48. prohibits wager policies, as they are called, altogether; prevents a man from insuring an event in which he has no interest. And where he has an interest, but not to the extent insured, prohibits him from recovering more than the amount of his interest. The effect of this Act, in a word, is to invalidate wagers framed in the shape of policies of insurance, thus in Paterson v. Powell, 9 Bing. 320., a wager on the price of Brazilian shares framed like a policy was held invalid.

This Act applies to all subjects of insurance except marine risk, and they are provided for by the insertion of a similar prohibition contained in 19 G. 3. c. 37. (a)

(a) Though Insurance Offices have a full right to avail themselves of the abovestated deficiency of the required interest, they rarely do

so unless there be reason to apprehend fraud. See Dowdeswell on Insurances, p. 62., where the law on the subject is clearly explained.

The Stockjobbing Acts

LECTURE VII.

STOCK-JOBBING ACT.-THE LORD'S DAY ACT.SIMONY. BILLS OF EXCHANGE FOR ILLEGAL CONSIDERATION.RECOVERY OF MONEY PAID ON ILLEGAL CONTRACTS.

THERE are some other heads of statutable illegality which are frequently set up as affording an answer to any attempt to enforce contracts vitiated by them. I directed your attention, on the last occasion, to the defences which arise under the usury laws, and the laws enacted for prevention of gambling; noticing the exception in favour of horse-races, and the invalidity of certain wagers not falling within the statutes against gaming, by reason of the Acts of Parliament which prohibit wagering insurances. The first class of cases to which I will advert this evening, consists of those contracts which fall within the prohibition of what are called the stock-jobbing acts.

The Act against stock-jobbing, is the 7th of Geo. 2. c. 8., which was a temporary Act, but was continued and made perpetual by the 10th of the same reign, c. 8. And it enacts, in substance for the section is a long and verbose one-but, in substance, it enacts, that all contracts in the nature of wagers, relating to the

then present or future price of stock, or other public securities, shall be void; and that all premiums paid on any such contracts shall be recoverable back again by an action of debt, for money had and received.

It has been decided on the construction of this Act of Parliament, that it was not intended to apply to any except British securities, and, consequently, that it does not prohibit gambling in the foreign funds. The question was long contested, but has been finally decided by Wells v. Porter, 2 Bing. N. C. 722., Oakley v. Rigby, 3 Scott, 194., 2 Bing. N. C. 732., Robson v. Fallows, 3 Bing. N. C. 392. (a)

Another class of contracts are those falling The Lord's within the operation of the statute commonly Day Act. known by the name of the Lord's Day Act. It is 29 Car. 2. c. 7., and it enacts that no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or other person whatever, shall do or exercise any worldly labour or business, or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's day (works of necessity or charity only excepted), and that every person of the age of fourteen years offending in the premises shall forfeit five shillings. The contracts prohibited by this statute are, you will observe, not every contract made on Sunday, but contracts made in the exercise of a man's trade or ordinary calling: thus, it has been decided in

(a) All wagers are void of tion by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100. this and every other descrip- s. 18. See antè, p.165 n.