Shibho Mal v. Lachman Das, ILR 23 All 165, an agent who paid the losses on the wagering transactions was allowed to recover the amounts he paid from his principal. In Beni Madho Das v. Kaunsal Kisshor ILR 22 All 452, the plaintiff who lent money to the defendant to enable him to pay off a gambling debt was given a decree to recover the same from the defendant. Where two partners entered into a contract of wager with a third party and one partner had satisfied his own and his co-partner's liability under the contract, the Nagpur High Court, in Md, Gulam Mustafakhan v. Padamsi AIR 1923 Nag 48, held that the partner who paid the amount could legally claim the other partner's share of the loss.

Hyams v. Stuart King, 1908-2 KB 696 deals with the problem of the legality of a fresh agreement between parties to a wager for consideration. There, two bookmakers had betting transactions, together, which resulted in the defendant giving the plaintiff a cheque for the amount of bets lost to him. At the request of the defendant, the cheque was held over by the plaintiff for a time, and part of the amount of the cheque was paid by the deft. Subsequently a fresh verbal agreement was come to between the parties, by which, in consideration of the plaintiff holding over the cheque for a further time and refraining from declaring the defendant a defaulter and thereby injuring him with his customers the defendant promised to pay the balance owing in a few days. The balance was never paid and the plaintiff filed a suit to recover the money on the basis of the fresh verbal agreement. The Court of Appeal, by a majority, Fletcher Moulton L.J. dissenting, held that the fresh verbal agreement was supported by good consideration and therefore the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount due to him.

betting

Partridge v. Mallandaine, (1886) 18 QBD 276, is to the effect that persons receiving profits from betting systematically carried on by them are chargeable with income tax on such profits in respect of a "vocation" under 5 and 6 Vict. c. 35 (the Income Tax Act) Schedule D. Hawkins J. rejecting the argument that the profession of bookmakers is not a calling within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, makes the following observations, at page 278 : "Mere betting is not illegal. It is perfectly lawful for a man to bet if he likes. He may, however, have a difficulty in getting the amount of the bets from dishonest persons who make bets and will not pay."