FREAK WAGERS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 1, 1 July 1935, Page 5

FREAK WAGERS

CELEBRATED CASES '

WHEN BETTING WAS LEGAL

FEATS OF ENDURANCE

{By "Colon.") The wager between two residents of Beeclrworth, Victoria, whereby one undertook to convey the other a distance, of 51 miles in a barrow, has had numbers of forerunners in English history. Mr. T. 'Parkinson was given eight days to push his human freight to the Chalet at Mount Buffalo, but a Ware innkeeper of great size and strength pushed a cart from Ware to Shoredilch Church in 1789 in ten hours, covering 21 miles in the process. In 1811 an ostler at Harrogate won a wager when he dragged a heavy phaeton three times round the local racecourse, a distance of four miles, in 22 hours, less than • half the . period he was allowed under the bet. A wager on the grand scale was that made by Josef Braschi, who declared that he would wheel a man in a barrow from Vienna to Paris in 30 days, and covered the distance of 860 miles with half a day to spare. Success by a smaller margin was gained by Lfloyd, the celebrated English walker, in 1826, when he walked backwards over the 30 miles between Bagshot and Surrey in less than fifteen minutes short of the nine hours stipulated in the bet. But Captain Barclay, another noted pedestrian, was easily victorious in his wager that he would walk 1000 miles in 1000 successive hours, the equivalent of almost 42 days. He'performed the feat in 1809, and is reported to have won £16,000. The total of bets placed on the affair was more than £100,000. RIDING BACKWARDS. ' A more difficult task was that of the German Count de • Buckebuvg. who visited England in 1715 and declared that he would ride a horse backwards from London to Edinburgh in four days. Fortunately for the Count, he was taken to mean that he would sit in the saddle backwards, and in this fashion he achieved his goal within four hours of the allotted time. Another curious wager was that of a man who said that he could haul in a pound weight attached to a cord a mile long and complete the task in 2J hours. He won the wager.' A rash challenge was one issued by the Duke de Chatres, Who dared the Count de Genlis to travel from Paris to Fpntainebleau and back while half a million holes were being pierced in paper. The Count won easily. There have been wagers; which revealed cleverness on the part of the man who made them. One such was laid by the Earl of March, later Duke of Queensberry, that he would send a letter by hand 50 miles in one hour. This apparently impossible feat was accomplished by means of enclosing the letter within a cricket ball and hiring a large number of cricketers to throw the ball to one another. Two hundred years ago Lord Orford figured in a novel wager when he bet a fellow-peer that a flock of geese would beat a number of turkeys in a race from Norwich to London. The road distance of this race was about 120 miles, and the geese- revealed better organisation, moving forward steadily and distancing the turkeys, which insisted on roosting in trees at night, and lost two days while being rounded up. But a too ingenious man named Courtney, who claimed that he would produce three, horses to. cover 90jnites in three hours was not able ■ to.':tcollect when he started the three horses together, and then, when they had gone 30 miles, said that he had- won the bet. He took.the matter to Court, but the law would not uphold him. TAKEN TO COURT. ; _ It is scarcely remembered that hetore ■ 1845, when English law relating to betting was changed, wagers were capable of enforcement, and the Courts were called upon to spend a good deal of time in considering them. In 1777 there was a much publicised case when the Lord Chief Justice was called in to determine a claim for £700, the amount of a wager as to the sex of the Chevalier d'Eon, who at the age of 50 changed into women's clothes. The Lord Chief Justice laid down the phincipre that wagers were not repugnant to the laws of England. He expressed disapproval of the practice, but found in favour of the plaintiff, after hearing the, evidence of an intimate friend of d'Eon and also a doctor who had attended him. The judgment of the court was that the Chevalier was a woman, but when he died thirty years later the judgment was found to be wrong. In another case the.Earl of March figured again. This was an action in which he took steps to recoversoo guineas fronra man named Piggot, and the wager in which the sum was staked was based on the length of men's lives. The subjects of the bet were another man named Cod-i-ington and Piggot's father. The Earl undertook to pay 500 guineas to Piggot if Codrington died first, and Piggot agreed to pay the Earl a like sum if Piggot senior were to pre-decease Codringtoni When the wager was made Piggot senior had already died, and neither of the two principals was aware of this fact. Piggot then declined to pay, and when the case was argued in court it was represented by counsel that as his client could not win he therefore should not lose. The court took the other view, however, and awarded the Earl his 500 guineas. THE LIFE OF NAPOLEON. Another case of somewhat similar nature turned on the length; of the life of Napoleon.Bonaparte. This was a wager between the Rev. B. Gilbert and Sir- Mark Syk.es. The latter had given a dinner party, and the conversation, turned on the perils which surrounded Bonaparte, who had already been the target of assassins. Sir Mark Sykes confidently proclaimed his belief that the Frenchman would not long survive the perils he faced, and offered to pay a guinea for every day that Napoleon lived, provided that someone would put up a stake of 100 guineas. The Bey. Gilbert took up the offer at once, sent Sir Mark 100 guineas, and was paid a guinea a day for about three years. After this time the baronet, regretting his impulse, refused to nay any further sums, and the Rev. Gilbert took the matter to court in the attempt to compel the continuation of the payments. The defence contended that the wager had been made without due consideration, and also that the transaction was illegal, as it gave the Rev. Gilbert a beneficial interest in the life of Napoleon, and therefore in the event of Napoleon invading England (such chance had long vanished) the plaintiff might be tempted to use means to preserve the life of an enemy of his country. The- jury found for Sir Mark Sykes, but later Lord Ellenborough granted a rule to show cause ■why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted as, in the Judge's opinion, a contract had been clearly established. However, the new trial was refused, the Judges deciding that the wager was illegal because cf ■■its tendency to produce a .public mischief, as it not only created an undue interest in the preservation of,the life of Napoleon, but it might induce a temptation (on the part of Sir Mark, apparently) to plot the assassination of Napoleon, any suspicion of this course being against the interests of the nation. i