case rawden against Shadwell that April bind for money win at play and a part  of it pay the court order the money to be repay and relieve against the bind  for the remainder lib Reg b foe can the defendant have win pound of the  plaintiff at backgammon for which he sometime afterward give the defendant a  bind and after that pay part of the money and on bill bring to be relieve  against the bind and to be repay the money which he have pay in part discharge  of it Lord Hardwicke chancellor decree accord with great clearness and say by  stat whether all security for money win at play be make void consequent the  payment under any such security can be support that the time limit by that  stat for sue for the recovery of money pay mean money actual pay at the time  it be lose and do not extend to security in this case it appear the plaintiff  know he be not oblige to pay the money and have so declare before he give the  bind and the transaction be many year ago yet decree as above see Firebrace v  bell vern vern Woodroff v Farnham vern Blackwell v Redman I Ch Rep in drone v  Houlditch price the court of exchequer refuse to restrain a defendant from  take out execution on a judgement by default on a case make by bill and answer  that the bill of exchange on which the action be bring be give in  consideration of deliver up a former bill which have be endorse for a game  debt and see in Bosanquet v Dashwood can tempt Talb in win v Callander Russ  the court of chancery direct bill of exchange make in France and substitute  for English bill give for a game debt to be deliver up it appear from lib Reg  that the plaintiff be under age and as state in the bill but deny by the  answer intoxicate be prevail upon by the defendant to play at lansquenet and  have lose pound to the defendant the latter demand payment whereupon the  plaintiff not be ready with the money pay he pound in cash and give his note  for the remainder that soon after the plaintiff attain his age of twentyone  year and before he be apprise that he be not liable to pay the pound the  defendant apply to he to pay the pound or give his bind for the amount that  thereupon the plaintiff give a bind for pound and note or draft for the remain  pound and that afterward upon be press by the defendant he pay he pound the  answer state that the pound draft be in part of the sum secure on the bind  never in fact pay the decree direct the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the  sum of pound and that the defendant shall deliver up the bind in question to  be cancel and that the injunction already grant to stay proceed at law shall  be make perpetual no cost be give on either side by reason that the plaintiff  pray his decree on the defendant answer the follow note of what take place at  the hear of this case be take from jewel ms No it be contend that as to the  refund the stat car give no remedy for money pay and that whether c give leave  to come into this court for discovery and when that be make the plaintiff have  have all the relief this court can give he and he may make use of it at law  but Lord chancellor say the court of chancery have take notice of these  transaction before the statute mention the relief pray be find upon the act of  parliament and be a common relief for a man to have such sort of security  deliver up that they may not be set up against he and I think the plaintiff be  entitle to it and the refund the money that have be pay follow as a necessary  consequence the statute say such security be void to all intent and purpose  and if the money have be pay upon they it ought to be pay back one be a  consequence of the other the statute Ann give a remedy by action within three  month but I think this clause relate to the recovery of money pay at the time  and not at a future day for which security be give it have be urge that the  act Ann mean to give a discovery but not relief in this court but the three  clause go further suppose in three month after play and money pay plaintiff  have bring his bill for discovery and repayment unless the defendant repay the  money he can get rid of the this ambler er p covery and therefore the act mean  something more than a discovery in this court therefore I think the plaintiff  be entitle to be relieve against this security and to have it deliver up the  statute make it void to all intent and as a consequence to have the money  refund that he have pay but as the bill be bring at a great distance of time  and defendant have make a free and open discovery no cost can be give this  statement if apply to the principal case be incorrect as appear by the extract  from lib Reg give above and it do not seem to be applicable to the case of  baker v William which see infra note the follow note of the case of baker v  William be take from Mr round ms the defendant win of the plaintiff pound S at  hazard for which he give his promissory note but the defendant not be satisfy  with this security the plaintiff assign leasehold estate for year hold under  the mayor and alderman of the city of Worcester as a security for pound of the  money and for the pound S be the residue the plaintiff give a negociable note  Payable to he or order and say to be for value receive upon which the former  note for pound S believe be cancel the defendant William endorse this note  over to his brother another of the defendant for so much money pay and advance  upon the same as be swear by both the defendant in their answer but be not  prove in the cause by reason that nobody be present at that time and the  defendant who be endorsee swear by his answer that he do not know or believe  or be inform at or before the endorsement of the say note or payment of the  money that the say note be give for a game debt or for money win at hazard or  any other unlawful game and that he apprehend himself to be entitle to the  money due on the note have bring his action at law upon the same this bill be  bring by the plaintiff to have a reassignment of the mortgage premise and the  title deed relate to the same deliver up and also to have the negociable note  cancel or deliver up and to stay proceed at law sir I Jekyll master of the  roll there be two thing to be consider in this case saint as to the negociable  note dly as to the conveyance of the leasehold estate the latter part be  liable to the objection that have be make against it which be that the  plaintiff can be entitle to a reconveyance because the act of whether c direct  that it shall enure for the sole use and benefit of and devolve upon such  person or person as shall or may have or be entitle to such land tenement or  hereditament in case the grantor or grantors thereof or the person or person  so encumber the same have be natural dead so this be of a chattel the next of  kin will be entitle to it and consequent as to that the plaintiff bill must be  dismiss as to the note for pound S the same act of parliament have make it  void and if it be put in suit at law no doubt but the party may make a defence  against it under the act but that be no objection against come into this court  for the person give the note be entitle to a discovery here it can not be the  intention of the legislature that after the discovery he shall be send to  another court of relief so it be that upon a discovery of asset the court  grant relief without send the party to law beside the plaintiff be proper here  to have the note deliver up aid so it be accord decree but no cost be give on  either side