THIBD NAT. BANK V. HAREISON. 247 �defendant then rested. The court thon directod a verdict for the plaintiff in manner and form as found by the jury, to which direc- tion and charge said defendant Harrison excepted at the time. The foregoing was all the evidence given and oiiered and proceedings had at' said trial. �On the foregoing statement it is contended that there was error, because the bank, even if a honafide holder for value, could net ex- ■clude from the consideration of the jury the original transactions bet^yeenthe makeir and payee of the notes aa void under the "gaming laws of Missouri." It may be admitted that as all the parties to these notes are, for legal purposes, resident in Missouri, the contracts are Missouri contracts, and subject to the laws of this state. Said ganjing statute is iii the following words : �"Sec. 5722. Bonds, ^tc.,founded on ifaminff consideration, wid. Ail judg- meuts, by confession, conveyances, bonds, bills, notes, and securitiea, when the <;onsideration is money or property won at any game or gambling device, shall be vbid, and may be set aside and vacated by any court of competent juris- dictiott, upon suit brought for that purpose by the person so confessing, giving, entering into, or exeeuting the same, or by his exeeutors or administratoi-s, or by any crediter, heir, devisee, purchaser, or other person interested therein. �"Sec. 6723. Assignment of, shall not affect the defence. The assignraent of any bond, bill, note, judgment, conveyance, or other security shall not affeot the defence of the person executing or confessing the same." �This act came under review at an early day by the supreme court of the state of Missouri, when the distinction was sharply drawn between gaming and gambling devices, and mere betting on uncer- tain events, �Under the statute 9 Anne, c, 14, § 1, it was held {Bowyer v. Bampteon, 2 Strange, 1155) that notes given for money lost at gam- ing were void, even in the hands of innocent indorsees for value. To the same effeot are Lowe v. Waller, 2 Doug. 716; Lloyd v. Scott, 4 Pet. 222; Thompson v. Bowie, 4 Wall. 463. We have been referred to the following authorities as shedding light on the question : Chitty, Bills, 95; Daniell, Neg. Inst. § 197; Ackland x.Pearee, 2 Camp. 599; Shillits V. Snee, 7 Bing. i05; Henderson v. Benson, 8 Price, 281; Chopin V. Dake, 57 111. 296; Manfiing v. Manning, 8 Ala. 138; Hatch y. Burrouffhs, 1 Woods, 439; Unger v.. Boas, 13 Pa. 601; Mordecai v. Dawkins, 9 Eich. (S. G.) 262; Vallett v. Parker, 6 Wend. 615; Weith V. Wilmington, 68 N. G. 24; Jordan v. Locke, Minor, (Ala.) 254; Stone V. Mitchell, 7 Ark. 91; Eagle v, Kohn, 84 111. 292; Thompson v. 5o;t'ic, 4 Wall. 463. ��� �
