“Indeed the courts of the land have gone to the extremity of denouncing in no uncertain terms the dangerous character of these illegal ventures. Judge Blauford, in the case of Cunningham vs. The National Bank of Augusta, in speaking of these transactions termed 'futures,' declares: 'If this is not a speculation on chances--a wagering and betting between the parties, then we are unable to understand the transaction. A betting on a game of faro or poker cannot be more hazardous, dangerous, or uncertain. Indeed it may be said that these animals are tame, gentle, and submissive compared to this monster. The law has caged them and driven them to the den. They have been outlawed; while this ferocious beast has been allowed to stalk about in open mid-day with gilded signs and flaming advertisements to lure the unhappy victim to its embrace of death and destruction. What are some of the consequences of these speculations in 'futures'? The faithful chroniclers of the day have informed us, as growing directly out of these nefarious practices, that there have been bankruptcies, defalcations of public officers, embezzlements, forgeries, larcenies, and deaths. Certainly no one will contend for a moment that a transaction fraught with such evil consequences is not immoral, illegal, and contrary to public policy.' “In so far as this doctrine is concerned with the case at bar, it is certain that the parties understood and intended that the money loaned should be used for the purpose of engaging in an illegal speculation in oil,--'a gamble in oil,' as it is termed in the agreement, and that such gambling transactions are against public policy and the law of the land. But it is contended by learned counsel that all this can have no bearing upon the case at bar for the reason that in the cases heretofore cited announcing these conclusions of law, the litigants were the parties who dealt with or for each other, and were the immediate parties engaged in an unlawful gambling venture, and the ones to gain or lose directly by the venture, and not a mere stranger who loaned money to another to engage in such transactions, and having but an undetermined interest in the result; and that the law will not lend its aid to a further wrong. The defendant having committed one wrong cannot be permitted to use his first wrongful act as an instrument whereby to effect a second wrongful act.