In England it is held that, where the direct object of a contract is innocent in itself, but one of the parties has in contemplation an unlawful purpose, the contract is void if both parties knew of the illegal purpose at the time the contract was entered into; that, though there is nothing illegal in a loan of money or a sale of goods, still, if it is known by the lender or seller that the other party intends to use the money or the goods for an illegal purpose, neither the money lent, nor the goods supplied, can form the subject of an action; that the whole transaction is void. Thus, where the plaintiff supplied a brougham to a prostitute, it was held not necessary to show that he expected to be paid from the proceeds of her calling; that his knowledge of her calling justified the jury in inferring knowledge of her purpose; and that this knowledge rendered the contract void. "My difficulty was," said Bramwell, B., "whether, though the defendant hired the brougham for that purpose, it could be said that the plaintiffs let it for the same purpose. In one sense it was not for the same purpose. If a man were to ask for dueling pistols, and to say, 'I think I shall fight a duel tomorrow,' might not the seller answer, 'I do not want to know your purpose. I have nothing to do with it, that is your business. Mine is to sell the pistols, and I look only to the profit of the trade.' No doubt the act would be immoral, but I have felt a doubt whether it would be illegal; and I should feel it still but that the authority of Cannan v. Bryce 3 and Mc-Kinnell v. Robinson * concludes the matter." •