421 They were only after 8 and 9 Vict.c. 109 zero, and there would have been no illegality in the payment. There is no doubt about that. Nor was there any illegality in the delivery of the cheque, nor was there any illegality in the payment, although the defendants were not compelled to pay by the plaintiff because he had been considered and accepted by law as being for an illegal consideration and was therefore outlawed in the hands of the applicant…….. The statutes do not make it illegal to give or pay the cheque and do not impose any penalties. Their effect and intent appear only to the extent that gambling or betting contracts cannot be imposed in court or equity…………… The opinion expressed by the Chair is therefore consistent with the view that the English courts have accepted all the time. An insurance contract is a compensation contract that protects the interests of a party from damages and also has an insurable interest. On the other hand, a betting contract is a conditional contract and has no interest in an event taking place or taking place. Unlike insurance contracts, betting contracts are void and the purpose of a betting contract is to speculate on money or money, whereas the purpose of an insurance contract is to protect interest. I do not think such a partnership is possible under English law.
Without taking into account other grounds for opposition to its existence, the language of the Gaming Act of 1892 seems sufficient to justify this sentence. For the idea of a partnership, it is essential that each partner is an agent. is entitled (subject to the provisions of the Partnership Declaration) to make, on their behalf, payments for partnership purposes for which 427 are authorized to claim credits from the company`s accounts and, therefore, to obtain, directly or indirectly, the refund. But by the Gaming Act, 1892, all promises to pay each person any amount of money he will pay in relation to a betting contract are null and void. These words are broad enough to destroy the fundamental treaty, which must be the basis of a partnership, and I therefore do not think that such a partnership is possible, and the complaint for that reason alone was poorly worded and should have been dismissed at a cost.