Court Of Exchequer, Monday, April 30. (.fY'nps mn IfassoD, Syrc Larg AIOXGER.) DAIE V. DEPtEMfl4. This 'was a special case, submitted to their Lordships for the purpose of obtaining n solemn decisi6n on the claim advanced by tho plaintiff, as owner of the great tithes of a parsish in Smersetshire, the name of whichiwe didnot cateh, toa titbe of vetches or tares severed when green. The argument having been in part ..beard from Mr. lm.a, on behalf of the plainti, it then apptared that the case had not been drawn up dith such a degree of accuracy and pre- cision as to the faets which would enable the Court to come to asatisafatoryjndgmen 'and whereuponitvwas agreed by Mr. BOTELER, for the defendant, at the suggestion of their Lordships, thatjudgment of non pros, should for the present be enterea for the defendant, which leas o be codsidert dfinal unless wfithin a certain time the plkingtif should present an amended case for the opinion of the Court, Wsith the consent of the opposite party to the fresh bects so to be introduced. PATBtCE v. conaitiCa. Thissvas a dlemurrer to the plea of the defendant to a pLaintiff and taking away a quanitity of strawg, it having been asserted, by way of justification, by the defendzant, that the plaintiff had taken away more straw from the defendant, who thereupon followed him into the close in which, &c., and took away his own straw. Mfr. LEEi appeared in support of the demurrer, but the Court being decidedly of opinion that the plea was a good one, the matters alleged by way of justification being quite sufficient to defeat the acton, the learned gentleman found himself compelled to yield the point. Judo,uent was ordered for the defendant, for whom Mr. Rt. *V. tichards appeared as counsel. i5'KINNELL V. ROBINSON. This was an action for money lent, to which the defendant pleaded, tbat the sum claimed by the plaintiff had been lent byhmt h efendant for the purpose of enabling him to pi)t t~~~~~~~~~~imt a'3 at a cartain illegal ram of chance coiled hazard, n that therefore the plaitiff could not recover it. To this the plaintiff dem urred, and to-day Ar. CPtOXPrOX appeared in support of the plaintiff'a case, and submitted that the matters pleaded were not any answer to the action. It waso admitted that no aotion could be eus- tained for any securities given for gambling debts; but this was a parol claim, i-hich was notwithin the meaning of the stAtutes of Charles and Anne, by which such matters were regulated. In support of this view reference was made to the case of " Baijeaux v. Walmsley," in Strange's Reports, 1 29, X taRobinson v. Bland," 2 Burr., another in 2 Wilson, taof"M'.elham v. Wood,"1 in 1 Esp., 17. On the other hand, MIr. WIGHTMAN contended that it was admitted on the record of the pltuntff that this was an illegal game, and preceeded to show, by citation of the various acts upon this subjeet that where money was lent for the fur- theranceef any illegal practices no action would lie. The ease of ':"Robinson v. Bland" had been misconceived by the text writers for it did not there appear for wX hat purpose the money was lent, and!tthe Court had held that it might-have been advanced fo&' praiseworthy purposes. Hero, however, it was distinctly brouglihtt efore the oPtice of the Court that the loan was made at a gaming-house, in a room where play wias going on, and for the ex press objeet of enabling the bor- rowVer to continue that illegal pursuit, and that, too, by the person playing 'vith and wining from him. The considera- tion, therefore, of the contract was clearly illegal, and when- ever that was elicited, at iVsi PFries or inx Banco, the Court woulainterfere to defeat the action. Mr. CRoMii'oa then replied, and pointed out the distinc- tion betw. een the acts passed for the suppression of the lotterN tables and these for the discountenancing of private gam- bling, arguing that " hazard" was noswhere declared to be illegal. Lord AniNGEnL-The caso is one 'of eeamt nicety, aLnd as there are contradictory decisions; w6e wfil?look into thiem and gire our decision after consideration. I must say, however, that it appears to me inconsistent that securities given for sums adianced at play should be ack-now-ledged to be vicious andrvoid, yet that it should be cointended that the plaintiff ma y recover on an implied se -curity a parol contract. Indeed i tated in 2 Wilson, 47, that if gambling securities are void thn dfe,iini an paol ontactmust be void aleo, Judgment wams therefore deferred. Thisbeingthelastcase in the speiapsaer for the day, the our prceeed o tat ontinig te new trials ; but notingof ublc iporanc waelcitd in theo cours of COURT OF EXCHEQOER, MONDAY. Amit 30.
