This Bill is short and very simple, and I trust that its introduction raises no false hopes. It does not legalise gambling, and it does not enable a person to sue for recovery of gambling debts. It has simply one effect, and that is to repeal Section 2 of the Gaming Act of 1835. Under that Section an action could be taken to recover money paid by cheque on foot of a gambling transaction, and in an action which went, I think, to the House of Lords, it was held that an executor was bound to take such action for the recovery of monies paid by cheque by the deceased person on foot of a gambling transaction. That created a very serious and awkward position for executors, and it must be remembered that it was not a one-sided provision. The book-makers or the executors of bookmakers could take — and the executors were bound to take — action for the recovery of monies paid on foot of a gambling transaction.
The single effect of this Bill is that when a person has lost and paid in a gambling transaction, an action will not lie for recovery. It does not exclude the right of pleading the Gaming Act. It does not put it in the power of any person to sue in the Court for the recovery of money won in a gambling transaction; but it does remove that anomaly by which, after the transaction is closed and after the money is paid over, the person who actually paid, or his executor, could sue for its recovery. That is the single effect of the Bill and I think it will be generally agreed that a law which puts the onus on the executor of the deceased person to sue for the recovery of all monies paid by him in the course of his life on foot of gambling transactions, is a provision that ought properly to be repealed. This short simple Bill repeals that provision.
