Wager

1.

A pledge or gage. Wager of battel or battle. Trial by combat. When the tenant in a writ of right pleaded the general issue and offered to prove it by his champion, and the tender was accepted, the tenant produced his champion, who, by throvring down his glove as a gage or pledge, waged or stipulated battel with the champion of the demandant. The latter, by taking up the gage, stipulated to accept the challenge. ' Eomig's Appeal, 84 Pa. 237 (1877), Woodward, J. 2 F. veiage, voyage; L. viaticum, provision for a journey: via, a way. The John Martin, 2 Abb. U. S. 181 (1870). [Friend v. Gloucester Ins. Co., 113 Mass. 333 (1873). 6 Be George Moncan, 8 Saw. 853 (1882). Taber v. United States, 1 Story, 7 (1839), Story, J. ' The Lart£, 1 Gall. 57 (1812); The Three Brothers, ib. 143 (1812).. This mode of trial, which originated in the military spirit of early days, was introduced into England by the Conqueror. It was also resorted to in appeals of felony and upon approvements.' See Approve, S; Battel. Wager of law. As in wager of battel the defendant gave a pledge, gage, or vadiwni, to try the cause by battel, so in wager of law he was to put in sureties or vadios that at such a day he would make his law, that is, take the benefit which the law allowed him. In the view that in cases an innocent man of credit might be over-borne by false witnesses, this species of trial, by the oath of the defendant himself, was established: for if he swore himself not chargeable, and appeared to be a person of repute, he went free and acquitted of the cause of action. He had, however, to produce eleven neighbors as " compurgators," his secta or suit, who upon oath avowed their belief that he spoke the truth. Abolished by 3 and 4 Will. IV (1833), c. 42.= If -wager of law ever existed in the United States, it is now abolished, 3 3. Placing something valuable, belonging in part to each of two individuals, in such a position, that it is to become the sole property of one, upon the result of an unsettled question.* A contract by which two or more parties agree that a certain sum of money or other thing shall be paid or delivered to one of them on the happening of an uncertain event.* The contract by which a " bet " is made; also, the thing or amount bet, but not the subject on which the bet is laid. A wager is the bet or stake laid upon the result of a game. " Bet " and " wager " are synonymous, and applied to the contract of betting and wagering, and to the thing or sum bet or wagered. They may be laid upon acts to be done, events to happen, or facts existing or to exist, — upon things legal and illegal. Offering a premium is not a bet or wager. A " premium " is an award or recompense for some act to be done. A '' wager " is a stake upon an uncertain event, At common law, all wagers were not illegal. Thus, it was not illegal to make a bet or wager on a horserace; and an action to recover a wager could be maintained.. To trot a horse in another State for a wager'or stakes is not prtma/acie illegal in that State. I 3 Bl. 337-41; 4 id. 346-48, 414. = 3 Bl. Com. 341; Coke, Litt. 295. Gh Udress v. Emory, 8 Wheat. 674 (1823). Edson V. Pawlet, 22 Vt. 293 (1860), Hall, J. Exp. Young, 6 Biss. 67 (1874), Blodgett, J.; Merchants' Savings, &c. Co. v. Goodrich, 75 III. 560 (1874). [Smooth. State, 18Ind. 19 (1862), Perkins, J. ' Woodcock V. Mc Queen, 11 Ind. 16 (1858), Perkins, J. ' Alvord V. Smith, 63 Ind. 63 (1878), Biddle, J.; Delier J. Agricultural Society, 57 Iowa, 481 (1881). Harris v. White, 81 N. T. 539, 544 (1880), cases; Wagering contract. A wager, as defined above; that is, a contract in which the parties stipulate that' they shall gain or lose upon the happening of an uncertain event in which they have no interest except that arising from the possibility of such gain or loss.i Whether a particular contract is wagering is for a jury to decide. All such contracts are void. The generally accepted doctrine in this country is that a contract for the sale of goods [merchandise, commodities, stocks, etc.] to be delivered at a future day is valid, even though the seller has not the goods, nor any other means of getting them than by going into the market and buying them; butsucha contract is only valid when the parties really intend and agree that the goods are to be delivered by the seller and the price is to be paid by the buyer; and if, under guise of such a contract, the real intent be merely to speculate upon the rise or fall of prices, and the goods are not to be delivered, but one party is to pay the other the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the date fixed for executing the contract, then the whole transaction constitutes a mere wager, and is null and void. This is now the law in England also,. by force of the statute of 8 and 9 Vict, (1845), c. 109, s. 18, altering the 6ommon law.2 Dealing in futures without intent to pay for or to receive or deliver the property is declared to be a wagering contract by recent enactments in Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and other States; and "bucket shops " and other places maintained for enabling.peisons to make such contracts are declared to be nuisances. See further Eutdbes; Option, Contract; Speocla-