
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1793.
    Daniel Hook against Elias Boteter.
    THIS wás a removal by habeas corpus, from the county court of Frederick.
    
    It was an action for money had and received, brought under the statute of 9 Anne, c. 14. entitled “ An act for the better preventing of excessive and deceitful gaming,” to recover back a sum of money won at gaming by the defendant from the plaintiff.
    The declaration set forth, that “ Whereas a certain Henry Broughton, John Powers and the said Elias Boteter, (which said Henry and John, upon the writ of capias ad respondendum, issued in this cause, &c. were, and each of them was, returned not to be found, &c.) on the 5th ánd 6th days of October,. in the year of our Lord 1790, at Frederick county aforesaid, were indebted to She said D. H. for so much money, after the 1st day of May, 1 i'll, had and received by the said H, B., J. P. and E. B., to the use of the said D. AT., whereby an action accrued to the said D. H., to demand and have of the said H. B., J. P. and E. B., the said sum of 160/. current money, according to the form of the statute made and provided in the parliament of the late Queen Anne, held at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, on the 25th of November, in the year of our Lord, 1JT0, entitled “ An act for the better preventing of excessive and deceitful gaming;” yet the said AT. B., J. P. and E. B., although often requested, &c. hath not yet rendered the 160/. current money, to the said D. H., &c.
    The verdict was for 120/. current money, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case, to wit:
    The plaintiff, to maintain his suit, proved that the plaintiff lost at gaming with the defendants at one sitting, 120/. current money, and for payment thereof, gave orders on different persons, to give the defendants credit in their stores for the above sum of 120/.; and the persons on whom the sajd orders were drawn, delivered the defendants goods out of th.eir stores to the value of the above sum of 120/.; and the plaintiff afterwards paid the money to the persons on whom the said orders were drawn. And the question submitted is, whether this evidence is a sufficient proof of the payment of money in and upon the declaration for money had and received, under the statute of 9 Anne, c. 14. ? If it is, then judgment to be entered upon the verdict for the said sum of 120/. current money and costs; if not, judgment of non-suit to be entered.
   The Court

said it was not necessary to prove that the gaming was deceitful or unfair, and were of opinion that the evidence did not support the declaration, the gaming being for money, and the payment being made in goods.

Judgment pf non pros, against the plaintiff.

Martin (Attorney-General) and Mason, for the appellant.

Key, Pinkney and J. Dorsey, for the appellee.

The plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals, where, at June term, 1/96, the judgment was reversed, and judgment entered for 120/. current money, damages and costs.  