"RUNNING FATHERS"

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 21, 25 January 1936, Page 22

"RUNNING FATHERS"

ORIGIN OF GAMING LAW

I When two young heirs, waiting impatiently for the death of their fathers so that they would come into their inheritance, decided to enter into a wager as to the duration of the lives of their respective sires, they little realised that they were assisting in the establishment of a legal principle I that lias vitally affected racing I throughout the world.

In 1771 a number of young men of j fashion assembled one night for din-' jner at the racing centre of Newmarket, j | The company included the Earl of 'March, Lord Ossory, and the two young heroes of this story, iVlr. Pigot and Mr. Codrington. Both Pigot and Codrington were seriously in need of money. After discussing the matter in the congenial after-dinner 'atmosphere they agreed to bet on the future lives of their respective fathers, a wagor that was by no means unusual in those days. There was, in fact, a phrase, "to run their fathers," current at the time to describe transactions of this nature. It should not be thought that the parties to the wager were actuated by the noble and filial motive of wishing long life to their parents. The truth of the matter was that eacn of the young, men would have been glad to lose the bet. Their intention was that he who came first to his estate should pay a sum of money to the other who stood in need of it. DIFFICULT ODDS. When the details of the wager were discusred a difficulty arose. Codrington Senior was only a little over 50 while Pigot Senior was well over 70. Th\i matter was referred to Lord Ossory and he decreed that the difference would be fairly adjusted by the bet being made one of 1600 guineas to 500 guineas. Codrington, having regard to the fact that fathers of Expectant heirs are notoriously long-livers, thought that the odds were unfairly adjusted against hitti and, to his misfortune, he stepped out of the picture. The Earl of March, who later becams the Duke of. Queensbury and was known to all and sundry as "Old Q," offered to take Codrington's place. Old Q, a notorious character of those times, was always prepared to wager on any contingency that had either a horse or a dog or a gamecock connected with it and, although he stepped outside his usual sphere on this occasion, he exercised bis customary good judgment. Pigot agreed to the substitution and notes were exchanged between the parties. The Earl's note ran: "I promise to pay to Mr. Pigot 1600 guineas in case Sir William Codrington does not survive Mr. Pigot's father.. March." Mr. Pigot's note made a similar promise except that the amount involved was 500 guineas. By an amazing coincidence it turned out that Mr. Pigot's iears for his solvency were quite unnecessary. His father had died at Shropshire, near London, several hours before the bet had been made. This fact is vouched for on the unimpeachable authority of a dusty old volume of Lav/ Beports from which this story has been taken. All the parties to the wager had entered into it quite honourably, knowing nothing of Pigot Senior's death and having no reason to think that he was even in ill health at the time LEGAL BATTLE DEVELOPS. It is not surprising that a battle royal developed when this extraordinary piece of news became known. Old Q argued that the wager was governed by the rule "play or pay" and that if Pigot could not produce his father as a starter in this unusual "Sires' Stakes" he must lose his bet. Pigot, on the other hand, contended that any wager was void unless each of the parties to it had at least some chance of success at the time it was entered into. They took the case to court, and Lord Mansfield, with the assistance of a jury, decided that Pigot must pay. Pigot appealed, and the diverting spectacle was witnessed of three distinguished Judges and five learned counsel holding a post-mortem on this afterdinner wager. Old Q again won on appeal, and recovered not only his 500 guineas but his costs, too. For some time prior to this case there had been a growing feeling that cases of this nature wasted the time of Courts and impaired their dignity, and with the case of Earl March v. Pigot this agitation received considerable publicity and grew in strength. Some four.years later it was enacted by statute that gaming wagers, even though not of a kind declared illegal, could not be enforced in a court of law. It thus came about that even in countries where bookmakers are legalised no Court administering English law will enforce any betting transactions entered into by or with them.

Two New Zealand cabes illustrate the far-reaching nature of this principle. In the early days of racing in Wellington the course at Island Bay was under the control of the Island Bay Racing Club. A certain Mr. Dark purchased a ticket from the totalisator and sued the club when it refused to pay out on it. Mr. Justice Richmond in the Supreme Court decided that the principle set out above applied and Dark, although his contract with the club was a perfectly correct one, had the misfortune of knowing that he had no means of enforcing it. Some months ago a well-known South Island trainer met with the same difficulty when he sued a club for stakes.