The first case we have to deal with is Grizewood v. Blane (1851) C.B. vol LI 526. In this case the fact as to whether both parties had entered into contracts as a purely gambling transaction was left to the jury.
But the Judge in directing the! jury stated "that if neither party intended that stocks and shares should he bought and sold then it was not a bargain but a mere gambling _trapsaction."" is Cress-well, J., dnd the other judges agreed was the right direction, ¢.e. if the intention of both parties was that the agreement should be settled by the payment of differences, it was a gaming transaction. On the evidence before them in that case it was abundantly clear that it was an agreed settlement by paying. difference and the jury so found. In this case now before me there is no jury and this fact as to the intentions of the parties has to be found by myself on the evidence before This question, whether, when the Bank and Ezra entered into the agreement the understanding was that the money was to be paid over or merely the differences of exchange I will deal with presently. In Thacker Hardy (1878) 4 Q.D.B. 685. Lindley, J., went into the question more fully. He there refers to these transactions on differences as Time bargains" and "What are called 'Time bargains' are, in fact, the result of two distinct and perfectly legal bargains viz, first a bargain to buy and sell and secondly a subsequent bargain that the first shall not be carried out.""
The Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett and Colin, L.LJ., agreed with the law laid down by Lindley, J. stating in their judgements "there must be two separate contracts or bargains one to buy an sell and the other not to deliver but merely pay the differences." Is here any evidence in this case now before me_on which I can find that this second bargain or contract was sutored into between the Bank and he debtor?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.