Curious Wagers.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 858, 10 August 1888, Page 10

Curious Wagers.

Suicides in consequence of betting on horses are not now very common, as there is, thanks to the Legislature, an easier way out of the difficulty. Scrape Davis, on hia return to Cambridge after each Newmarket Meeting, cut his throat with the greatest regularity, and the doctor had been so often summoned to sew up the scratch which Scrope had judiciously inflicted, that at last ha declined to come any more unless the messenger would state from his own personal knowledge the length and depth of the wound. A Cardiff showman, however, through losing a bet, was some time back guilty of 4 the tragical deed of self-murder.’ In Cardiff at the time there was a great deal of speculation as to whether a certain murderess would be hanged or not, and among those who undertook to anticipate the fiat of the Home Secretary was a local showman, who was so positive that the extreme penalty of the law would be carried out, as to back opinion by a heavy wager. Eventually the sentence of death was commuted to one of life-long penal servitude—an act of clemency whioh so upset the showman and his calculations, that he forfeited his own life, instead of the condemned, woman having to give up herß. That person, however, is not the only one on wheae life a wager has depended. All sorts of bets are reported to have been made in connection with tho death of the great Napoleon, and in the middle of the last century, when White’s Club had a branch house at Richmond, a wager was duly entered in a betting-book that Sir William

Burdett, who was said to have cheated another member of the cluD out of a large sum of money, would be the first baronet to be hanged. No one was the worse for the wager, as the layer predeceased Sir William ; and had the matter been taken into a court of law—for in those days an ordinary bet could be enforced like any other contract—it would have been held to be a wager of an immoral tendency, and therefore unenforce, able. A considerable number of wagering enriosities can be brought to light by reference to the older law-reports, and judges seem to have spent much of their time in deciding upon the rights of parties to the most cxraordinary, as well as the most frivolous, wagers. Tho somewhat ancient case of 4 Eltham v. Kingsman ’ seems to show the inconvenience the hirers of hack flies might have been subjected to in those byegone days. The driver of one Cheltenham 4 Fly-by-Night ’ made a bet with a brother whip that he would drive a certain person to the Assembly Rooms on that evening. The rival accepted the wager, and it is easy to understand, from our modern experience of opposition omnibuses, how a great price would be set upon the head of the 4 fare.’ The 4 certain person ’ was carried in the vehicle of him who betted that the honour of employment would fall to bis share, and, as the loser declined to pay, an action was brought to recover the money. It took the court some time to deliberate upon the momentous question before it, but the decision was that the bot was illegal, as tending to subject a third party to tbe importunities of proprietors of these vehicles. In some older reports we find a Wager Was made as to the sex of a third party, and also that two persons, to whom the event Was not of the slightest interest or importance, made a wager that a certain woman would give birth to a male child before a specified date ! The makers of catch bets have always found dupes. The victory of ‘The Hermit’ in the Two Thousand of .1854 has of itself extracted many a pound from the pockets of those who were aware only of the existence of Mr. Chaplin’s famous horse. The billiard sharp, who rashes a novice into accepting a wager of ss, that he (the sharp) pockets a ball, and just la more that he breaks the brass of the pocket, still finds takers ; while so long as the confidence trick flourishes it will be possible to win money by betting that no one will correctly write down, from memory, a facsimile of the dial of a watch or clock, or that a correct guess will not be made as to how many five-pound notes will balance a sovereign in tbe scales. The billiard table has given rise to many other wagers in addition to the catch one mentioued above but, with referenoe to skill, few players have had greater confidence iu their powers than the Hamburgh billiard marker, who, towards the close of the last century, was always ready to back himself to make a winning hazard from one table to aoother placed alongside or at the end of the first one. Shortly afterwards another professional would place two balls in a line in the middle of the table, and lay even money that he would make either a winning or a losing hazard into either of the six pockets. To-day we seldom hear of Eensational wagers, and betting is almost entirely confined to speculation upon racing, and the various forms of competition. An excellent story, however, is told of the late Mr James Merry, of racing fame. He once made a heavy wager with a friend that the latter’s dog could not draw the former’s badger within a stipulated time. Shortly before the day fixed the friend presented himself, and gave very flourishing accounts of his dog, with the object of inducing Mr Merry to withdraw from the contest. This was not at all to the Scotchman’s mind, and, to his surprise, the friend paid forfeit next day, upon the condition that bets slioald be off. Then itjcame out that the dog was so ill that he could have taken no part in the proposed match, and Mr Merry was laughed at for not having insisted' on his rights. ‘Well,’ he said, 4 laugh if you please ; but I did fairly well, for if his dog was ill, my badger was dead.’ 4 Those defunct revelltrs who boxed, gambled, and drank, and drove, with him who died George IV.’ were fond of making strange bets, some of which were attended with serious consequences. On seeing Lord Tylney pay his tailor between £2OO and £3OO, Lord Castlemaine betted Mr Childson of the banker—both of them were staying at Lord Tylney’s— twenty guineas to five that he would within a certain time, make the tailor give up all the money he had received. The bet was accepted, the tailor withdrew, and. after a visit to the housekeeper’s room set out for home. In due course a highwaymau appeared, and, under threat of having his brains blown out, the tailor handed over bis riches, but lost no time in repairing to Lord Tylney’s to state his lose. While relating his misfortune Lord Castlemaine happened to appear clad in the identical cloak he had worn on the previous night. ‘Were he England’s Kmg I could swear to him,’ was the tailor’s answer to his customer, who remarked that he must be mad to recognise in Lord Castlemaine the man who bad robbed him. The practical joker confessed to his wager, but before matters oou’d be amicably arranged the tailor insisted on receiving a present of fifty pounds. Scarcely less noticeable m its way is the heavy gambling of an earlier generation. Col. Mellish is reported to have been in the habit of playing for £40,000 at a sitting, and, when Shillelagh could only get second to Plenipotentiary for the Derby of 1834, the two lengths between the horses cost the Duke of Cleveland £IB,OOO. Lord George Bentinck stood .to win £150,000 on Gaper for the Derby of 1843, and it was in connection with this particular race that Lord Glasgow offered to lay Lord George £90,000 to £30,000 against his horse. Betting curiosities, however, are not yet at an end, and perhaps .one of the greatest is to be found in the readiness with which people, acute enough in ordinary affairs, patronise those arch impostors, advertising tipsters, and invest more than they can afford upon their selections. —The Field.