.w

224 THE RELATIVE DUTIES OF MANKIND. [Part III.

“ operate virtually as a fraud upon the sale ; they are unconscien-tious (against conscience) and against public policy, and have atendency injuriously to affect the character and value of sales bypublic auction, and mislead private confidence.” So, if theartifice of by-bidding is resorted to at an auction to enhancethe price, and deceive the real bidders, and they are in fact misled,the sale will be held void, as against public policy. Again,gaming contracts are not only prohibited by statute, but are, intheir nature, highly immoral, as the practice of gaming tends toidleness, dissipation, and the ruin of families. “No one hasdoubted, that, under such circumstances, a bill in equity might bemaintained, to have any gaming security delivered up and can-celled.” And it is settled, “that, if money is paid upon agaming security, it may be recovered back, for the security isutterly void. The Roman law, too, contains a most salutaryenforcement of moral justice upon this subject. “It not onlyprotects the loser against any liability to pay the money won ingaming ; but, if he has paid the money, he and his heirs have aright to recover it back at any distance of time, and no presump-tion or limitation of time runs against the claim.” #

(5.) The learned author to whose aid I am indebted for sever-al of the last paragraphs, has examined the question, how far acontract of sale is rendered invalid, by the circumstance of theseller’s knowing, at the time of the sale, that the article sold isto be converted by the buyer to an unlawful and immoral pur-pose. The general doctrine is well settled, that the considera-tion for which a contract is made must be legal, and even meri-torious, consistent with good morals, and not against public policyand the interests of society. But the result of the “ decisions ”seems to be, “ that mere knowledge of the illegal purpose forwhich goods are purchased, will not affect the validity of thecontract of sale of goods intended to be smuggled into a foreigncountry, even in the courts of that country.” It seems, that, torender the contract invalid, “ there must be some participation orinterest in the act itself.” And yet, in an extreme case, ChiefJustice Eyre said, that the seller “would not be allowed to

* Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. I. pp. 290, 302, 303. — Conflict of Laws,p. 205.