1. Where racing articles specified the terms of the race, and money betted, though there was no obligation distinct from the articles, yet as they detailed all that could have been set forth in an obligation and articles, it was held that they were equivalent to the bond required by the act of 1800, ch. 21.
2. Racing articles in writing cannot be varied or altered by parol testimony, though such testimony is admissible to prove their effect.
3. If the articles are to play or pay, and defendant refuses to run, the plaintiff is entitled to one-half the sum betted.
NOTE. — On the second point, see Sharp v. Murphy,, 1 N.C. 631; Critcher v. Pannell, 5. N.C. 22; Jackson v. Anderson, ibid, 137. On the third, see Farrell v. Patteson, post, 362. All horse-racing contracts are now void. 1 Rev Stat., ch. 51.