The Sun.
London, England, 1808-12-22 00:00:00

I._,`TP R:I.PORT.

COL,Itt.OP BENCH. GUILDt-iALL; bze.-ti.

STEIN ACII V. br. LA COCR.

This Was‘'an aelion an ft Policy of Insnrance.. Orl
the ship Canopus, from the Baltic to lorway-,
-Which wa:. lost 1 the perils of the sea. The de-
fence set up eras, that she Was not sea-Worthy. The
as a foreigner, waS Called ; he proved
ih*t she was a new ship, and perfortiled her frrgt
;troy i;e very well. The next voyage to Nor‘i,ay she
i!.11:2d. and niti,nately made so much water that thel
Were forced to her into port. On examining
her there Were three libles as large as Anger holes in
her ~.';atoin. It appealed .as the trunnions had
tiorte,l, but they h:rd received no shock or any stress
of weather which could have beat them from their
places.
GAartow, for the Defendant, contended,
th e have been unsea-worthy frow her
building, and that these boles must have been left
open originally. He accounted for the ship making
no water in the first voyage, by the sheathing pro-
teding the holes, but that not being able long to re-
sist the, sea, it of course flowed through* the boles
when that thin defence gave way. The Jury found
for the Defendant.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DFc. ro.

A PRIZE IN THE LOTTERY.

SWIFT ih IIORI':.ISBY.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY moved that the Defendant
might be ordered to pay into Court the sum of 6151.
t2s. Gd. being the --sixteenth share of a Lottery.
Ticket, that was entitled to a prize of tO,OOOl. in
the English Lottery of the year 1803. He stated,
that the Plaintiff had been a , livery-servant in the
service of James Taylor, Esq, of Southampton-; the
Defendant kept a Lottery Office in this city, and
had an agent, of the name of Skelton, for the per-
pose of disposing of Tickets in Southampton. In
the year 1503, the Plaintiff purchased a Sixteenth
from Skelton, about a week before the drawing
titimmenced; -in two days afterwards it was stolen
from him, and one of his fellow-servants was sus-
pected of the theft. The Plaintiff went to - Mr.
Skelton, and informed him of 'his loss, and that he
wa. not certain what the number was, but it was
eniier No 26,280, or 26,880. Mr. Skelton in-
formed him, that he was the Detendants's Agent,
and the best thing he could do was, to write to him
on the subje6t, and Skelton took a ruemoraedum in
his book (" Lost Sixteenth, either 2,6,280, or
26,880 Taylor, Esq.") Accordingly, on the 26th
of April, 1903, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defen-
dant, stating, he had purchased a bixteeath of a
tickrt, N 0.26,880, from Or. Skelton, which he
had lost, and requesting, . that the Defendant would
assist him in recovering as it made hitt) and the
person suspected extrewely uneasy. The Defeti-
v4ant sent au answer, dated the 27th, that-No. X 6,880
Was nut one, of his shares.—On the 28th of April,
No. 26,28 a was drawn a prize of 10,0001. On the
Same day, the Petendant wrote to inform Skelton,
that he had the pleasure of informing him that he
(Skelton) had sold a sixteenth of that prize.
Skel-
ton answered that letter, stating he had sold it to
the' Plaintiff, a livery servant ut Mr. Taylor, but
who had unfortunately lost it. Mr. Skelton, insti-
gated by humanity, did not inform the Plaintiff,
but waited on his master, Mr. Taylor, and acquaint-
ed- him with the circumstances, who directed his
betler, a person of the name of Brundrett, to write
tb the Defendant to the followieg purport, dated
May 1

" Christopher Smith bought the sixteenth of a lottery
ticket froin Mr. Skethm, which he has lost, but the number
of which he believes is 26,25,, the late fortunate ticket.
From the known respectability of your Itouse, I have no
doubt but you will facilitate the recovery of it, and it tender-
ed, you will have it stopped, and give notice to yours, &c.
ROBERT I.II(UNVRE'I t."

On the 3d of May the Defendant sent the follow-
ing answer—That a share of a lottery ticket being
negociable and payable like a bank note, it was very
hard to retrace it, but he would do what was in his
power. In the year 1805, the Plaintiff filed a bill
of di,covery, and in June 1808 tiled a further bill,
praying relief. The Defendant, in his first answer,
says, he believed, that on the 15th of May, 1 8 03,
the share that was sold at Southampton was paid at
the Office in London, by one of his clerks, who did
not, as he believed, make any inquiry, and that it
Was direetly destroyed, as was customary in lottery
transactions ; he admitted that one sixteenth never
had been paid or demande.l, but he believed it was
Rot the one sold at Southampton ; there were pri-
vate numbers put upon shares, and entered in his
book ; that the share sent to Southampton, had a
private mark of the number 850, and that paid had
the same number. In his subsequent answer he denies
that he ought to have given the Plaintiff any notice of
its being tendered, as he had no power to refuse the
payment, and particularly so, as the number was not
sworn to by the Plaintiff'. Ile admitted that he did
not give any direetiuns to his clerk to stop, or make
any inquiry ; and he also admitted that he was un-
able to swear positively that the sixteenth which has
not been tendered, and retnans unpaid, was nut the
one purchased by the Plaintiff.- Under these circum-
stances, Sir Samuel Romilly trusted his Lordship
would order the money to be paid into Court. It
could be no hardship on the Defendant ; for even if
the Plain-tiff failed in making out Ins case, the De-
fendant was only the trustee of some one, for the
money did not belong to him. Mr. Taylor, the
master of the Plaintiff, had offered to indemnity ilia)
three-fold ; and he held an affidavit of the Plaintiff
in his hand, in which he s..vore the share he pur-
chased from Skelton, was a sixteenth Of the ticket,
number r.gt;',.'Bo, because he bad found a memoran-
dum made in his own writing, during the time he
Lad the ticket in his possession.
Mr. HART and Mr. WILSON, Cotmsel for the De-
ivqidant, contended that there was no cause sliewn
why the money shoutd be paid into Court. it could
answer no ?urpose to. the Plaintiff, except he thought
it might indeice the, Defendant to enter into a com-
promise. At the first .tnome.nt the Plaintiff might
have brought an action at law. Why did he wait
three years, alter he was apprised of the number
being drawn, before he brought his bill of re-
covery, and.then not stir again for two years more
!t must have been because lie knew his'ease was