按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
action； but moneys paid cannot be sued for by losers。 Wagers
give a right of action when the stakes consist of cash in the
hands of a third person； they are void if the winner had a
knowledge of the event； and concealed it。 Moneys lent for
gambling or betting purposes； or to pay gambling or betting
debts； cannot be sued for。 Gaming house keepers and gamblers are
punishable with fine； professed gamblers with imprisonment。
Occasional cheating at play obliges to compensation； professed
swindlers at play are punishable as for theft； and banished
afterwards。 Moneys won from a drunken man； if to a considerable
amount； must be returned； and a fine paid of equal value。
4。 AUSTRIA。
In Austria no right of action is given either to the winner or
the loser。 All games of chance are prohibited except when
licensed by the state。 Cheating at play is punished with
imprisonment； according to the amount of fraudulent gain。
Playing at unlawful games； or allowing such to take place in
one's house； subjects the party to a heavy fine； or in default；
to imprisonment。
5。 ITALY。
The provisions of the Sardinian Civil Code are similar to those
of the French； giving an action for moneys won at games of
strength or skillwhen not excessive in amount； but not
allowing the recovery of moneys lost； except on the ground of
fraud or _MINORITY_； a provision taken from the _OLD_ French
law。
6。 BAVARIA。
By the Bavarian Code games of skill； and of mixed skill and
chance； are not forbidden。 The loser cannot refuse to pay； nor
can he recover his losses； provided the sport be honestly
conducted； and the stakes not excessive； having regard to the
rank； character； and fortune of the parties。 In cases of
fraudulent and excessive gaming； and in all games of mere chance；
the winner cannot claim his winnings； but must repay the loser on
demand。 In the two latter cases （apparently） both winner and
loser are liable to a fine； equal in amount；for the first time
of conviction； to one…third of the stakes； for the second time；
to two…thirds； and for the third time； to the whole： in certain
cases the bank is to be confiscated。 Hotel and coffee…house
keepers； &c。； who allow gambling on their premises； are punished
for the first offence by a fine of 50 florins； for the second；
with one of 100 florins； for the third； with the loss of the
license。 The punishment of private persons for the like
offence is left to the discretion of the judge。 _UNLAWFUL_
games may be _LEGALIZED_ by authority； but in such case； fraud
or gross excess disables the winner from claiming moneys won；
renders him liable to repayment； and subjects him to arbitrary
punishment。 _IMMORAL_ wagers are void； and _EXCESSIVE_ wagers
are to be reduced in amount。 Betting on indifferent things is
not prohibited； nor even as to a known and certain thingwhen
there is no deception。 No wager is void on account of mere
disparity of odds。 Professed gamblers； who also cheat at play；
and their accomplices； and the setters…up and collectors of
fictitious lotteries； are subject to imprisonment； with hard
labour； for a term of from four to eight years。
Although； therefore； cheating gamblers are liable to punishment
in Bavaria； it is evident that gambling is there tolerated to the
utmost extent required by the votaries of Fortune。
7。 SPAIN。
Wagers appear to be lawful in Spain； when not in themselves
fraudulent； or relating to anything illegal or immoral。
8。 ENGLAND。
In England some of the forms of gambling or gaming have been
absolutely forbidden under heavy penalties； whilst others have
been tolerated； but at the same time discouraged； and the reasons
for the prohibition were not always directed against the
impropriety or iniquity of the practice in itself；thus it was
alleged in an Act passed in 1541； that for the sake of the games
the people neglected to practise _ARCHERY_； through which
England had become great‘to the terrible dread and fear of all
strange nations。'
The first of the strictly…called Gaming Acts is one of Charles
II。's reign； which was intended to check the habit of gambling so
prevalent then； as before stated。 By this Act it was ordered
that； if any one shall play at any pastime or game； by gaming or
betting with those who game； and shall lose more than one hundred
pounds on credit； he shall not be bound to pay； and any contract
to do so shall be void。 In consequence of this Act losers of a
less amountwhether less wealthy or less profligateand the
whole of the poorer classes； remained unprotected from the
cheating of sharpers； for it must be presumed that nobody has a
right to refuse to pay a fair gambling debt； since he would
evidently be glad to receive his winnings。 No doubt much misery
followed through the contrivances of sharpers； still it was a
salutary warning to gamesters of the poorer classeswhilst in
the higher ranks the ‘honour' of play was equally stringent； and；
I may add； in many cases ruinous。 By the recital of the Act it
is evident that the object was to check and put down gaming as a
business profession； ‘to gain a living；' and therefore it
specially mulcted the class out of which ‘adventurers' in this
line usually arise。
The Act of Queen Anne； by its sweeping character； shows that
gaming had become very virulent； for by it not only were all
securities for money lost at gaming void； but money actually
paid； if more than L10； might be recovered in an action at
law； not only might this be done； within three months； by the
loser himself； but by any one elsetogether with treble the
valuehalf for himself； and half for the poor of the parish。
Persons winning； by fraudulent means； L10 and upwards at any
game were condemned by this Act to pay five times the amount
or value of the thing won； and； moreover； they were to ‘be deemed
infamous； and suffer such corporal punishment as in cases of
wilful perjury。' The Act went further：if persons were
suspected of getting their living by gaming； they might be
summoned before a magistrate； required to show that the greater
portion of their income did not depend upon gaming； and to find
sureties for their good behaviour during twelve months； or be
committed to gaol。
There were； besides； two curious provisions； any one assaulting
or challenging another to a duel on account of disputes over
gaming； should forfeit all his goods and be imprisoned for two
years； secondly； the royal palaces of St James's and Whitehall
were exempted from the operation of this statute； so long as the
sovereign was actually resident within themwhich last clause
probably showed that the entire Draconian enactment was but a
farce。 It is quite certain that it was inoperative； and that it
did no more than express the conscience of the legislaturein
deference to _PRINCIPLE_； ‘which nobody could deny。'
After the lapse of man