Contract-IUegality--Recovery at money lent for gambling purposes.
Money-lending-Gambling-Money lent for purpose at gambling not recoverable
Reception-Gambling debt-suit upon-Application of English law in absence at

legislation on the question

Plaintiff and defendant were at the Syrian Club in Khartoum on a
certain night in September 1916. They were together with others engaged
in gambling for most (if the night and the defendant lost heavily. As a
result of the night's activities the defendant stood indebted to. the plaintiH
for £EI22.500 m/ms. The exact circumstances in which this debt was
incurred were not proved, but on the evidence the court came to the
conclusion that the bulk of the sum claimed was lent to the defendant
for the purpose of gambling.

Held: ),hat since under English law money lent for the purpose of
gambling ~ irrecoverable, and since there is no Sudan Ordinance relating to
the matter, English law should be applied and the action should rbe
dismissed.

'Egyptian Gambling Law, No. 1 of January 9, 1904.
English Gaming Acts.

Aifflon

The facts are set out in the judgement of Peacock J.. ~ March 23, 1918. Peacock, J.: This is a claim by Michael
Saba against Philip Philippe des for £.122.500 m/ms.

The parties were at the. Syrian Club, Khartoum, on a certain
night in September 1916. They and others commenced to play
Baccarat. They continued to play during the night and the defendant
was a loser. As a result of the night's play the plaintiff contends that
the defendant was indebted to him for £,122.500 m/ms as mOI}ey lent.

Before considering whether this is a claim of which this court.
will take cognisance it is desirable to consider whether the sum
claimed: (1) Is a sum' which the defendant lost by gambling with the
plaintiff? (2) Was lent to the defendant for the purpose of gambling?
or whether it (3) Was paid by plaintiff on behalf of defendant to
settle. gambling debts.

Although I am not satisfied that some portion of this sum was
not lost by defendant in gambling with the plaintiff, I am satisfied
that the amount lost in this way was a comparatively small portion
of the claim. There is evidence that the defendant was playing against
the plaintiff at the commencement and Zahid Hddad states that the
plaintiff was playing against defendant later. From the evidence that
has been given the court is able to arrive at one- conclusion. That
conclusion is that the plaintiff lent a considerable sum of money to
the defendant. What the exact amount was has not been proved to
my satisfaction .

. Was the amount lent to defendant in settlement of gambling
debts already contracted, or was it lent for the purpose that he might
gamble? The plaintiff throughout the case contended that this was
not merely a transfer of account, but that money in fact passed, and
on his own admission he was financing the defendant. If the plaintiff
had not financed the defendant.vl am satisfied that the' defendant could
not have continued playing, and in his petition the plaintiff contends
the sum claimed was advanced to defendant.

On the evidence I hold as a fact that the bulk of the sam. claimed
was/money lent to the defendant for the purpose of gambling. It is
possible that at the end of the affair the plaintiff might have paid
iome comparatively small amount in settling up, but there is no
evidence that this exceeded £.25 an amount which the plaintiff admits
having received from the defendant.

Now having regard to the above facts which have beet). proved;
is the plaintiff entitled to recover in this court money lent to enable