
    
      Stowell vs. Guthrie.
    r|PRQVEK for goods, and notes for money won by gaming. And for the plaintiff it was argued, that though under the British act, and according to the cases which put a construction 0» it, the plaintiff cannot recover, because in pari delicto potior <tui conditio possidentis; yet that rule will not apply to our act, which goeth further than the Bsitish act. in this, that by our see sot only the security but the contract is void : And by our act. also, the transfer of any personal chattel, to satisfy or fay money or other thing xvon by gaming. ?3 void. By the British act, the payment of money won is kit at the option of the plaintiff; and if he makes it he cansar, complain s But by our act, the payment ss ravaereii void. If so, it passes no property to the receiver, and he gcicr. a oaired possession o-Jfy by the transfer, leaving the property in the lot* v. And why leave the property in him, u». ie.-.c F,.y cm recover it? Of trbts* ese will it b«, to say that the wwwdw bb»U be ”cvi„ if the plaintiff cannot hiere an action to as» *wt Sri:? right of pny-^ty | 7 fee transaction will be void ia ■words, but k? se»iky nnavnldiibk, for want of die means necessary to its í'vrcí.'-ECí!.
    
      Á mntre u vuri argued,
    that winning a thing staked up at the S;me, was not within the prohibition of the act} and it it was, at the j’cAitNF, who is a violator of the law, shall not be fiewd So comp?-..* nd s:.i„' enees of bis misconduct.
   Taylsr, Judge»

The act should be so construed as most eficC-tuallv (.0 suppress the vice of gaming, which is the parent of every in'iíortuue ; and the best way to do this is to give no action to the plaintiff in sucha cases For knowing that be will not be re* iicved, he will take care not to engage in gambling.

Verdict lor the defendant.

Severe. — Is it not the principle of this act to take care of these who have not prudence enough to take care or themselves ? If r.o, it is against its principle to say, let men take care of themselves»  