1 In the Revised Statutes of New York, 1 R. S. 663, § 8, it is declared, that " all wagers, bets, or stakes, made to depend on any race or upon any gaming by bet or chance, or upon any bet, chance, casualty, or unknown or contingent event whatsoever, shall be unlawful;" and " all contracts for and on account of any money or property or thing in action so waged, bet, or staked, shall be void." See also Peck v. Briggs, 3 Denio, 108, and Lewis v. Miner, 3 Denio, 103; Ruckman v. Pitcher, 1 Comst. 392; Storey v. Brennan, 15 N. Y. 524. Gaming is also prohibited in Massachusetts, and money lost in gaming can be recovered. Rev. Stat. p. 1, ch. 50, § 12, 14,15. It is declared that persons losing money by gaming may recover it back; and if within three months he do not sue therefor, any other person may sue therefor, and recover treble the value of the money or goods lost, one moiety being to the use of the Commonwealth, and the other to the suitor. All securities and conveyances are also declared void if any part of the consideration therefor be for gaming; except as to bond fide holders for a valuable consideration without notice. Mass. Rev. Stat. ch. 50, § 13-16, p. 387. And see Mass. Gen. Stat. ch. 85.

2Denniston v. Cook, 12 Johns. 376.

3 Hunt v. Bell, 1 Bing. 1; 7 Moore, 212; Egerton v. Furzeman, 1 C. & P. 613. 4 Squires v. Whisken, 3 Camp. 140.

5 Brogden v. Marriott, 3 Bing. N. C. 88; 2 Scott, 712.

§ 698. So, also, wagers which tend to affect the feelings or interests of third persons;5 or lead to indecent exposures and examinations; or are in any manner contra bonos mores,6 - are void. Thus, a wager as to the sex of the celebrated Chevalier D'Eon;7 and a wager as to whether Joanna Southcote, a pretended prophetess, and an unmarried woman, would have a child by a certain day, was held to be illegal.8 So, also, a wager whether a woman has committed adultery; or has had a bastard child; or any wager which wantonly exposes a person to ridicule or improper imputation, or which operates as a libel, - is void.9

§ 699. In the United States wagers are generally made void by statute; as are also all species of gaming.10 And the loser of an illegal wager may recover his deposit of the stakeholder, if he has not paid it over at the time suit is brought.11 So, too, wager policies of insurance, that is, policies effected

1 Allen v. Hearn, 1 T. R. 57, n. b; Busk v. Walsh, 4 Taunt. 290.

2 Evans v. Jones, 5 M. & W. 77.

3 M'Allister v. Hoffman, 16 S. & R. 147; Hickerson v. Benson, 8 Mo. 8; Ball v. Gilbert, 12 Met. 397; Tarleton v. Baker, 18 Vt. 9; Wheeler v. Spencer, 15 Conn. 28; Stoddard v. Martin, 1 R. I. 1; Gardner v. Nolen, 3 Harrington, 420; Guyman v. Burlingame, 36 111. 201.

4 Hartley v. Rice, 10 East, 22; Rust v. Gott, 9 Cow. 169; Wroth v. Johnson, 4 Harr. & M'Hen. 284; Allen v. Hearn, 1 T. R. 57.

6 It has been decided in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, that no wager concerning any human being is recoverable in a court of justice. Phillips v. Ives, 1 Rawle, 37. The court was, however, divided in opinion.

6 Eltham v. Kingsman, IB. & Al. 684.

7 Da Costa v. Jones, 2 Cowp. 729.

8 Ditchburn v. Goldsmith, 4 Camp. 152.

9 Da Costa t>. Jones, 2 Cowp. 729; Atherfold v. Beard, 2 T. R. 610; Gilbert v. Sykes, 16 East, 150; Hartley v. Rice, 10 East, 22; Shirley v. Sankev, 2 Bos. & Pul. 130.

10 See Edgell v. M'Laughlin, 6 Whart. 176; Knight v. Gregg, 26 Tex. 506; Hayden v. Little, 35 Mo. 418; Monroe v. Smelly, 25 Tex. 586; Mosher v. Griffin, 51 111. 184 (1869); Sutphin v. Crozer, 1 Vroom, 257; Perkins v. Clcmm, 23 Ark. 221.

11 Graham v. Thompson, Irish R. 2 C. L. 64 (1867). See Savage v. Madder, 36 Law J. (n. s.) Exch. 178. In Shaw v. Gardner, 30 Iowa, 111 by parties having no interest in the subject of insurance, are void by statute in England, and generally in America.1