
    C. G. Knight v. Henry Gregg.
    The courts of this State will not sustain a contract based upon a gambling consideration.
    Appeal from Burleson. Tried below before the Hon. R. E. B. Baylor.
    The appellant brought this suit upon the promissory note of the defendant for twenty-two_ hundred dollars.
    The defendant pleaded want of consideration, fraud in the procurement of the note, and that the note was executed upon a •gambling consideration, being for the amount therein specified, lost by the defendant and won by the plaintiff at a game of cards, upon which the defendant was induced to bet by the fraudulent representations of the plaintiff.
    On the trial it was proved in behalf of the defendant that the parties gambled at cards for a mule valued at two hundred dollars, which was won by the plaintiff eleven times, and each time purchased back and re-staked by the plaintiff; and that at the close of the contest, which occupied several meetings, the defendant executed the note for the value of the mule so purchased eleven times by the defendant from the plaintiff. Verdict and judgment for defendant, and new trial refused.
    
      Barber, and Hancock West, for the appellant.
   Bell, J.

The courts of this State will not sustain a contract based upon a gambling consideration. (Norvell v. Oury, 13 Tex. R., 31; Conner v. Mackey, 20 Tex. R., 747; and a case decided at Tylei', not yet reported.)

The judgment of the court below is aifirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  