JUDGMENT Richards and Tudball, JJ. - This appeal came before us on the 3rd of May 1910. The suit was one on foot of certain hundis. The defence was that the hundis were given for the value of certain goods which the plaintiff failed to deliver, and that there had been certain wagering contracts between the plaintiff and the defendants, and that the plaintiff wrongfully applied the hundis to the satisfaction, not of the price of the goods which had been purchased, but to the settlement of the wagering account. The court of first instance decided in favour of the defendants on the ground that the hundis represented a wagering contract. The lower appellate court, in the first instance refrained from going into the question as to whether or not the hundis were given in settlement of a wagering contract, and decided the case on the ground that the different branches of the plaintiff's firm in different cities were separate entities, and that even if the contracts were wagering contracts, they were not wagering contracts entered into with the Cawnpore branch of the plaintiff's business. We accordingly referred an issue to ascertain what was the real consideration for the hundis, and whether it was illegal having regard to the provisions of section 30 of the Indian Contract Act. The finding on this issue has now been returned, and the court has found that the hundis represent the amount due by the defendants to the plaintiff on accounts settled between them as principal and agent, in other words, that even assuming that the transactions wore gambling transactions in the sense that it never was intended that actual delivery of goods should be made, nevertheless the wagering contract was not between the plaintiff or the other branches of his firm and the defendants, but that the silver bars were purchased and sold by the plaintiff from or to third parties as agent for the defendants. An objection has been filed to this finding on various grounds; but it has not been suggested that there was no evidence on which the court was entitled to come to the finding at which it arrived. It has been argued that this finding was a new case which was not put forward at any time by either of the parties, at least until the issue was referred. It has been argued that this finding was a new case which was not put forward at any time by either of the parties, at least until the issue was referred. We find, however, that in the third ground of appeal to the lower appellate court the plaintiff, in effect, took this very ground, namely, that even if the transactions were in their nature gambling transactions because the delivery of the goods was not contemplated, nevertheless, the plaintiff was the agent of the defendants and was entitled to recover the loss he had sustained. We think that the finding on the issue is binding upon us, and that being so, we are bound by the authority of the case of Shibho Mal v. Lachman Das (1901) I.L.R., 23 All., 165. In that case it was expressly held that an agent who has paid wagering losses for his principal is entitled to recover. The learned Judges decided on the authority of the case Thacker v. Hardy (1878) L.R., 4 Q.B.D. 685. This last mentioned authority was decided when the law in England in respect of gambling transactions was practically identical with the present law in this country as provided by section 30 of the Indian Contract Act. The result is that the appeal const be dismissed with costs.