
    Patrick McDonough vs. George Webster.
    Cumberland.
    Decided December 3, 1378.
    
      Wager.
    
    All wagers in this state are unlawful.
    The stake-holder is liable for money deposited in his hands on a wager, upon a demand on him while he has the money. It is no defense that, after suoli demand, he has paid it to the winner.
    ON exceptions from the superior court.
    Assumpsit to recover $100, deposited by plaintiff with defendant as stake-holder on a wager.
    The evidence, not contradicted, tended to show that one Henry Milliken, a few days after the presidential election, bet $25 to $100 that Hayes would be the next president of the U. S.; the plaintiff took the bet. On cross-examination, the defendant stated that when the demand was made on him, it had not been decided who was to be president; that after the fourth of March and the inauguration of Hayes, and before the date of the writ, he paid the money to Milliken, the winner.
    The presiding justice ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the S100, with interest from March 4, the date on or before which the demand was proved to have been made; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      J. H. Drummond c6 J. O. Winship, for the defendant.
    
      A. W. Bradbury, for the plaintiff.
   AppletoN, C. J.

The plaintiff bet with one Milliken on the result of the last presidential election. The parties deposited the money with the defendant. The plaintiff, before the 4th of March, 1877, and when the money deposited by him was in the defendant’s hands, demanded the same of him, which he refused to deliver, but paid it to Milliken, whereupon this action was brought.

The instruction that the plaintiff was entitled to recover was in accordance with the statutes of the state as well as with the decisions of the court. E. S., c. 4, § 71. It was decided in Lewis v. Littlefield, 15 Maine, 233, that all wagers in this state are unlawful. The same result was had in House v. McKenney, 46 Maine, 94. So, in Massachusetts all wagers are held unlawful, and the money can be recovered back. Love v. Harvey 114 Mass. 80. Decisions to the same effect are found in New Hampshire. Hoyt v. Hodge, 6 N. H. 104. In Yermont, West v. Holmes, 26 Vt. 530. In Illinois, Padfield v. Green, 85 Ill. 529.

Exceptions overruled.

WaltoN, Babeows, YtbgiN and Libbey, JJ., concurred.  