"As to fraud, little need be said. If there be false pretences or false personation employed, there can be no question that to get up a ' corner' is indictable, even though the offence is unconsummated. It is as to coercion that the difficulty arises. A conspiracy to obtain money by coercion is unquestionably indictable at common law. And of coercion there are two kinds. The first is physical, and when this is applied for the purpose of obtaining money, there is no doubt that an indictable offence is made out. The second is moral, and here the vexed question before us emerges. Is it ' moral' coercion, so as to make the use of it for the purpose of obtaining money indictable, to buy up any particular necessary commodity for the purpose of getting inordinate prices ? We have some analogies in this respect to guide us. It has been held that he who drives another before him till the victim plunges into a river in terror and is drowned, is guilty of homicide.1 It has been held, also, that the maxim, volenti non Jit injuria, does not apply to a person succumbing under the paralysis of extreme need or fear.2 It is possible to conceive of the buying up of the corn, or the meat, or the coal of a community so exhaustively as to compel purchasers in agony to pay any price that the speculators demand. But to make out a case of coercion of by gambling or betting, or the repaying of money lent for gambling or betting. By the statute 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 41, s. 1, such securities, instead of being absolutely void, are deemed to have been made for an illegal consideration; and under this statute notes for gambling debts may be good in the hands of bona fide holders for value, such parties, however, having the onus on them of proving consideration.1 But at common law a gaming contract, not tainted by fraud, is not void.2 And when money, fairly lost, has been paid, it cannot at common law be recovered back;3 though it may be otherwise by statute.4 There is, it is true, high authority for holding that a court of equity will compel the surrender of securities given for gambling debts.5 And equity, under circurnstances of oppression or fraud, will enjoin a plaintiff from enforcing a judgment obtained on a gambling contract;1 and will set aside a deed the consideration of which is an illegal wager.2 But a losing party, not distinctively a victim or a dupe, will not be assisted in recovering back money paid by him on his losses.3 Judge Story, indeed, goes so far as to maintain that money lost by gambling should be recovered back "in furtherance of a great public policy, independently of any statutable provision." But Mr. Perry, the latest editor of Judge Story's work on Equity Jurisprudence, adds, "the opposite rule has finally prevailed, with few exceptions. And we are not able to comprehend how, or why, a court of equity should be able to grant relief upon principles different from those recognized in courts of law. There may be exceptions, based upon great oppression, and unconscionable advantage taken of one's weakness or want of caution, through the form of an illegal contract, where the courts of equity will treat the fraud as being the chief ingredient, and grant relief to the injured party upon that ground. But where the parties stand upon equal footing, and the contract is illegal, they cannot expect aid either from the courts of law or equity."4 - In most states, by statute, provision is made for the recovery back of money lost in gambling.5 - That a deposit on an illegal wager may be recovered back will be hereafter seen.6 - A broker caunot recover for the value of services in conductino; gambling contracts.7 - When articles which are exclusively used for gambling are sold, their price cannot be recovered. But it is otherwise when they may or may not be so used. Thus, it is no defence to an action for the price of a billiard table that it may be used for gambling purposes, even though

1 R. v. Pitts, Carr. & M. 284.

2 See cases enumerated in Whart. Cr. L. (8th ed.) sec 164, 167, 521. To this, however, it is to be added that when to the absorbing of all of a particular commodity that is in the market, is added a purchase for future delivery of large blocks of such commodity from a party ignorant of the "cornering," this, as has been said, is an attempt to cheat by false pretences, and the contract is void.

Securities given for gaming debts void, but money paid cannot be recovered back. - Price of gambling this class the following conditions are necessary: First, the thing should be a necessity of life. We cannot speak of coercion in buying articles of luxury or taste. Secondly, the market must be so engrossed as to produce an actual famine. Anything short of this would make it an indictable offence for holders of grain, or meat, or coal, to agree to sell only for remunerative prices; and not only, therefore, would one of the great safeguards against panics be removed, but the regulation of prices would be given to courts. This might be consistent with high toryism. It might be consistent with communism. But it is not consistent with constitutional republicanism. Nor can such a jurisdiction affect beneficially even the classes it is designed to aid. Monopolies, unless protected by the state, are soon headed off, when their gains become exorbitant, by the intrusion of other capitalists offering reduced prices. But when a price is fixed by law it cannot be changed. It may prove to be ruinous to purchaser, or it may prove to be ruinous to vendor; but whatever it may prove to be it must remain. Nor would business men of character go into speculations which would expose them to indictment; and as there is no large enterprise that would not be open to this charge, those entering into such enterprises would be men without character."

1 Leake, 2d ed. 752; Hay v. Ayling, 16 Q. B. 423; Edmunds v. Groves, 2 M. & W. 642; Bingham v. Stanley, 2 Q. B. 117.

2 Wilkinson v. L'Eaugier, 2 Y. & Col. 364; Babcock v. Thompson, 3 Pick. 446; but see Wilkinson v. Tous-ley, 16 Minn. 299.

3 Cotton v. Thurland, 5 T. R. 405.

4 Spalding v. Preston, 21 Vt. 9; Got-walt v. Neal, 25 Md. 434; Thomas v. Cronise, 16 Ohio, 54; Cleveland v. Wolff, 7 Kans. 184; Thorpe v. Coleman, 1 C. B. 990. See Story on Cont. sec 695. "If one, having lost money by gambling, or on a wager, pays it, the law will not aid him to recover it back." Blodgett, J., Jackson v. Foote, 12 Fed. Rep. 41.

5 1 Story Eq. Jur. 12th ed. sec 303, citing Rawden v. Shadwell, Ambl. 268; Woodroffe v. Farnham, 2 Vern. 291; Portarlington v. Soulby, 3 My. & K. 104; Osbaldiston v. Simpson, 13 Sim.

513; though see contra, Cowles v. Ra-guet, 14 Ohio, 55; Bispham's Eq. sec 223.

1 Skipwith v. Strother, 3 Rand. (Va.) 214.

2 Thomas v. Cronise, 16 Ohio, 54.

3 Supra, sec 353; Bispham's Eq. sec 223; Adams v. Gay, 19 Vt. 358; Spalding v. Preston, 21 Vt. 9; Gotwalt v. Neal, 25 Md. 434; Cowles v. Raguet, 14 Ohio.

55; Thomas v. Cronise, 16 Ohio, 54; Adams v. Barrett, 5 Ga. 404. See as to recovery hack from stakeholder, supra, sec 450.

4 Story's Eq. 12th ed. sec 304.

5 Ibid.

6 Infra, sec 729.

7 Barnard v. Backhaus, 52 Wis. 593. See supra, sec 453, for opinion.

the vendor may have reason to suspect that such use is intended.1