If the owner of a horse entered for a race is aware of its disqualification he may re cover his money back before the race, but not afterwards ; 2 C. & P. 608.
Money expended by one part owner of a race horse for the common benefit of another owner and himself, with the understanding that the owners are to share alike in the winnings of such horse, is recoverable (from the second owner), to the amount of one-half the sum expended where the horse loses the race ; 26 L. J. C. P. 181.
In this country the decisions as to whether horse racing constitutes gaming within the statutes are not uniform. It has been held, to be gaming or a gambling device; Redman v. State, 33 Ala. 428 ; State v. Rorie, 23 Ark. 726; Corson v. Neatheny, 9 Cal. 214, 11 Pac. 82; Cheesum v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 332, 44 Am. Dec. 771; Cain v. McHarry, 2 Bush (Ky.) 263 ; Dyer v. Benson, 69 Ga. 609; Van Valkenburgh v. Torrey, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 252; Mosher v. Griffin, 51 Ill. 184, 99 Am. Dec. 541; Wade v. Deming, 9 Ind. 35 ; Grace v. McElroy, 1 Allen (Mass:) 563 ; People v. Weithoff, 51 Mich. 212, 16 N. W. 44.2, 47 Am. Rep. 557; Wilkinson v. Tousley, 16 Minn. 299 (Gil. 263), 10 Am. Rep. 139; State v. Hayden, 31 Mo. 35; Haywood v. Sheldon, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 88; State v. Catchings, 43 Tex. 654; Ellis v. Beale, 18 Me. 337, 36 Am. Dec. 726; contra, Corn. v. Shelton, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 592; State v. Lemon, 46 Mo. 375.
Racing a horse on or along a public road, though no bet has been offered on the result of such race, has been held an in dictable offence ; State v. Fidler, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 502; ,and the fact that a charter has been granted for a race-course will not au-1 thorize betting thereon ; Cain v. McHarry, 2 Bush (Ky.) 263. In many of the states, however, the times at, and seasons in, which horse racing may be indulged are regulated by statutes which tax and license the racing associations. The trotting for a purse or premium contributed or subscribed by other persons is not trotting for a wager ; Ballard v. Brown, 67. Vt. 586, 32 Atl. 485 ; People v. Fallon, 152 N. Y. 12, 46 N. E. 296, 37 L. R. A. 227, 57 Am. St. Rep. 492; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 ; Delier v. Agricultural Society, 571 Ia. 481, 10 N. W. 872; Misner v. Knapp, 13 Or. 135, 9 Pac. 65, 57 Am. Rep. 6; Porter v. Day, 71 Wis. 296, 37 N. W. 259 ; Alvord v. Smith, 63 Ind. 58; but see Dudley v. Jockey Club, 14 Misc. 58, 35 N. Y. Supp. 245 ; Comly v. Hillegass, 94 Pa. 132, 39 Am. Rep. 774; Bronson Agricultural & Breeders' Ass'n v. Ramsdell, 24 Mich. 441.
Pools on horse races are games within the statute against gaming; People v. Weithoff, 51 Mich. 203, 16 N. W. 442, 47 Am. Rep. 557 ; Swigart v. People, 154 III. 284, 40 N. E. 432; contra, James v. State, 63 Md. 242 ; and the rule applies to pools sold in one state on a race to he run in another; Williams v. State, 92 Tenn. 275, 21 S. W. 662; Lacey v. Palm er, 93 Va. 159, 24 S. E. 930, 31 L. R. A. 822, 57 Am. St. Rep. 795 ; but not where only the orders for bets were taken and transmitted by telegraph, as it was held that the actual betting was done out of the state; Lescallett v. Com., 89 Va. 878, 17 S. E. 546.
The general rule against betting on horse races applies to all betting wherever done; State v. Lovell, 39 N. J. L. 463; and all pool ing schemes are within the statute; Com. v. Simonds, 79 Ky. 618 ; but in some states bet ting or pool-selling with reference to races run on a licensed track are excepted from the statutory prohibition; State v. Posey, 1
Humph. (Tenn.) 384; State v. Fidler, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 501; State v. Blackburn, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 235; Huff v. State, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 279; but not otherwise; Williams v. State, 92 Tenn. 275, 21 S. W. 662.
The regulation of horse racing falls under the police power ; the right to license may be delegated to a commission; and an act regu lating it is not invalid because trotting races are excepted; State Racing Commission v. Agricultural Ass'n, 136 Ky. 173, 123 S. W. 681, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 905. This case con tains much horse and horse racing history. The same act was sustained in 'Grainger v. Jockey Club, 148 Fed. 513, 78 C. C. A. 199, 8 Ann. Gas. 997. A delegation of the super vision of horse racing to a commission was upheld in State v. Williams, 160 Mo. 333, 60 S. W. 1077. See also Grannan v. Racing Ass'n, 153 N. Y. 449, 47 N. E. 896. An act prohibiting horse racing during the winter months or on any track more than three times a year, etc., is valid; State v. Roby, 142 Ind. 168, 41 N. E. 145, 33 L. R. A. 213, 51 Am. St. Rep. 174. An act penalizing betting by machines or other contrivances was held to include "Paris" Mutual ; Com. v. Simonds, 79 Ky. 618. Book making on a horse race is a gambling device within a statute; Miller v. U. S., 6 App. D. C. 6.
One who keeps a room as a resort for Persons who bet on horse races is guilty of keeping a disorderly house; Haring v. State, 53 N. J. L. 664, 23 Atl. 581; so where one maintains a partly enclosed place for the purpose of making books and selling pools; Swigart v. People, 154 Ill. 284, 40 N. E. 432.
Blackboards, sheets, manifold books, and policy slips for placing bets on horse races are gambling devices ; Com. v. Adams, 160 Mass. 310, 35 N. E. 851; State v. Shaw, 39 Minn. 153, 39 N. W. 305; contra, People v. Weithoff, 93 Mich. 631, 53 N. W. 784, 32 Am. St. Rep. 532.
Although the business of pool selling is illegal, the crime of embezzlement may be committed by the agent who receives the money, in appropriating it to hls own use; State v. Shadd, 80 Mo. 358.
Money lent for the purpose of betting on a gambling device cannot be recovered ; Shaffner v. Pinchbeck, 133 Ill. 410, 24 N. E. 867, 23 Am. St. Rep. 624; nor can a note given for money lent for such a purpose; Cutler v. Welsh, 43 N. H. 497; and see Lan ahan v. Pattison, 1 Flip. 410, Fed. Cas. No. 8,036. In the District of Columbia, it is held that the Statute 9 Anne, c. 14, s. 1, supra, is still in force and that all notes given for gambling contracts are void, even in the hands of a bona fide purchaser ; Lul ley v. Morgan, 21 D. C. 88; contra, Bozeman v. Allen, 48 Ala. 512. A check given to enter a horse for a horse race is given for an il legal purpose and there can be no recovery thereon; Comly v. Hillegass, 94 Pa. 132, 39 Am. Rep. 774. A promissory note given for an interest in a race horse is not void; Bieg ler v. Trust Co., 62 111. App. 560.
A jockey, under a contract to perform his services in "a good and workmanlike man ner," need possess and exercise only a rea sonable degree of skill, knowledge and abil ity as such; Middendorf v. Schreiber, 150 Mo. App. 530, 131 S. W. 122.
See GAMING ; LOTTERY; WAGER; STAKE HOLDER; BETTING.