The Sun.
London, England, 1847-10-19 00:00:00

10 18
10 18

TSB. SUN. LO7NDOW,

which ran into the Vanguard, has got her stem com-
pletely demolished. The Vanguard, of course, put
back to Greenock, and she and the Minerva are lying
at the steam-boat quay, both in a very pitiable plight.
We have not been able to ascertain the cau-e of this
unfortunate occurrence, as those connected with the
steamers seem unwilling to say anything about it.
We hear it reported that the Vanguard had no lights
exhibited at the time, and it is said by others that the
Minerva was six points away from her proper course.
There were, providentially, no lives lost, nor have we
heard of any one being injured, although some of the
Vanguard's forecastle berths were driven in.—North
British Mail of Monday.

prietors have 8,000 shares, at 500 florins each. It is
their desire to form a company, and after deducting the
sum of 30,000 florins for the reserve fund, 10,000 florins
for improving the establishment, and 15,000 florins as
the salary of the directors (these directors are the
honourable contractors themselves), to divide the sur-
plus among the members.—Hamburgh and Flanders
Papers.
EMBITItGH CRIMINAL STATISTICS.—A half-
yearly report of crimes and offences which came under
the cognizance of the Edinburgh police, has just been
issued by the superintendent, Mr. Haining. It will
be remembered that the return for 1846 gave an
exceedingly favourable account of the state of local
crime during that year, and we are happy to no-
tice that the data of the first half of the present
tyear promise a similar result at its close. As usual,
he comparison of particular crimes with former returns
varies ;—thus, while it appears that during the first half
of this year shop-liftings and pocket-pickings have both
deereased, housebreakings and robberies have in-
creased. The figure opposite the latter crime is
14, and includes those dastardly outrages com-
mitted on the public streets, which spread
such consternation among the inhabitants last win-
ter, the perpetrators of which were nearly all banished.
The number of housebreakings is given at 118; and like
the two previous years, the majority were committed
by day, in the proportion of seventy-four to
forty-four—a circumstance which greatly reduces the
value of the property stolen. Of 306/. abstracted by
housebreaking, 1071. was recovered. The most in-
teresting part of the report, however, consists in
the statement given how the cases were disposed of.
While 432 persons were convicted in the Police Court,
374 were discharged for want of proof. Thus nearly as
many escaped as were convicted, and this
is invariably the case, arising from the na-
ture of the law which requires the evidence of two
witnesses, which it is often very difficult to obtain,
so that although there be no doubt of the guilt of the
party, the ends of justice are defeated. 317 prisoners
were remitted to a higher Court, of whom 42 were trans-
ported, 83 sentenced to imprisonment, and 157 disposed
of without a jury trial, leaving 35 untried at the date of
the Report.—Edinburgh Advertiser.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MR. BRITTON.—He remarks
in his preface to the new publication of Aubrey's MS.
on Wilts, that it is his intention now to devote himself
to the autobiography which he has undertaken to write
for the host of kind friends who have subscribed a large
sum of money as a public testimonial to him.—Builder.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

MARYLEBONE COUNTY COURT, Oct. 18.

WILLSHIRE V. WEST.

This was an action to recover the sum of 201.,
said to be due from defendant to plaintiff, under
circumstances arising out of the " Running Rein "
affair of 1844.

Mr. Townsend appeared for the plaintiff, Mr.
Waflinger for the defendant.
Mr. TOWNSEND said Mr. Willshire was plaintiff,
and Samuel West, landlord of the Masons' Arms,
Edgeware-road, was defendant. The action was
brought to recover 201., alleged by the plaintiff
to have been received by the defendant for his use
under the following circumstances :—ln December,
1843, defendant established a " Derby Sweep," on
condition that a certain number of persons should
subscribe one guinea each in order to be enabled to
draw from a balloting-box one of a certain number
of cards with the manes of horses, &c., on them.
One of the conditions was, that he who should draw a
card bearing the name of the second horse for the
Derby of that year should receive 201. Plaintiff
drew a card having printed on it " Colonel Peel's b. c.
lonian, &c., by Whisker." In due time the Derby
was run, Running Rein coming in first, Orlando
second, and lonian third. If Running Rein had
been properly qualified the present action would
never have been brought, but the horse was dis-
qualified, and the consequence was that Orlando was
pronounced the first horse and lonian the second.
It had been decided in the Courts at Westminster,
that legally Running Rein, though running first,
was not the first horse. That decision was so
well founded and reason*ble that he would not
argue that point further. The moment that de
cision took place plaintiff gave defendant notice not to
pay over the money to any one except himself, that
he claimed it, and, therefore, defendant could not
plead that be was ignorant of the winner. The only
defence he could make, unless he went on the tech-
nical ground of illegality, was that he would not pay
at all. Having 'paid in opposition to the notice he
had nobody but himself to blame. He would call
the plaintiff to prove that he bad joined the society at
the instigation of defendant ; that he had paid him one
guinea and received his receipt for it; and he would
then call witnesses to prove that defendant had re-
ceived a guinea each from other persona engaged in
the society. He would then prove the practice of the
society, and thought that, having done so, he would
be entitled to a verdict.

Mr. Wiltshire was then called, and proved that he
had paid defendant a guinea towards a Derby sweep,
and that, after the race in 1544, he had given him
notice not to pay the second prize of 201. to any one
but himself. The time for settling was named to be
about a week after the race, and the notice was served
before that time.

Cross-examined by Mr. WALLINGER—This was in
1844, and the notice was served two days before the
settling of the sweep. I did not serve the' notice, but
I can prove that Mr. West read it, and that he re-
fused to pay in consequence, he said, of advice from
counsel.

By Mr. TOWNSEND—After I had applied to Mr.
West for the money, he offered me 17s. 6d. for having
drawn a starting horse. That fact proves, I think,
the legality of the transaction.
Mr. WALLINGER, for the defence, said this was a
case that ought never to have been brought before a
jury, except, indeed, for the sake of inducing the
defendant to pay through fear of expenses, or of
having his name and house injured by a suit of the
sort. The jury, he believed, would not give a ver-
dict on the facts as stated. They would form their
own opinion of them, and take the law from the
Learned Judge. He would give an exact version of
the facts :—The horse Running Rein, in point of fact,
was the first horse, and Orlando the second for the
Derby run in May, 1844. That being the case, the
holder of Running Rein in defendant's sweep was en-
titled to a prize of 1001., and the holder of the second
horse to one of 201. Amongst starters 221. were to
be divided, entitling each holder of one to
17s. 6d. The question was whether, Running Rein
being disqualified by certain persons calling them--
selves the Jockey Club, that could prevent him from
being considered first horse in reference to toe Derby
sweep ? The generality of persons managing these
sweeps acted on the fact of his having been the first
horse that passed the judge's chair, and distributed
the prizes accordingly. Such was the impression on
the defendant's mind, and he paid over the 100/. to
the holder of Running Rein, and 201. to the holder of
Orlando. Could any one suppose that, after having
paid those sums, he should be obliged to pay them
again because of a certain decision of disqualification
by some persons or other ? The race was run in
May, 1844 ; the time for payment of the prizes was
early in June, and yet now, in 1847, the jury were
called upon to decide what had been settled long ago.
This was not a case of a person either there setting
by legality or keeping the money dishonestly. The
question was, who was to be the loser by the decision
of the Jockey Club ? However, there was nothing
unreasonable or unfair if the defendant should defini-
tively say, " I have paid the mosey, and if you per-
sist in your action I'll plead the illegality of the whole
proceedin,4-."
By the COURT—The case " Peel v. Wood" was
decided on the 2d of July, 1844, and that of " Torr
and Another" in Trinity Term, 1846, in the Exche-
quer Court, and the decision of the Court was, that
such a lottery as this was illegal by the 10th and 11th
William 111., c. 17.
Mr. WALLINGBE said, though this latter case was
not reported in the books, it was in the recollection
of the bar that the case was so decided certainly.
Mr. TOWNSEND contended that in the year 1845,
by the Bth of Victoria, Games and Wagers Act, the
statute of William was annulled, and that therefore
prizes by subscription, though drawn by lot, were
legal.
Mr. WALLINGER, after some discussion, started
another point. He said the question really was whether
the sweep was a legal transaction at the time it was
established, viz., in December, 1843. The race was
run in 1844, but the Act to amend the laws concern-
ing games and wagers did not pass till 1845. The
transaction took place, therefore, whilst the Act of
the 10th and 11th of William 111. was in force.
The Learned JUDGE, addressing the jury, told
them that if they had any doubt on the question of
law he had none. The contract was made when the
old law was in force, and by that law it was illegal.
It had been so decided in the Courts at Westminster,
and the decision there was binding on his Court. He
felt bound to say that the transaction was illegal, and
if the jury agreed with him on that point they would
find a verdict for the defendant.

The jury then consulted, when all of them but one
agreed with the Learned Judge.
Mr. Thomas, as arnicus curia, stated that it was
the every. day practice in the Courts at Westminster
for the judge to point out the law to the jury, and
direct them to find for the defendant. If they re-
fused, the judge would direct a nonsuit.
The Learned JUDGE—I think I have the power of
nonsuiting, and will take it on my own responsibility
to do so.
Plaintiff nonsuited accordingly.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
lette
YesterdayrfromEtrhaneuLfoorznM.
the
-mit
asainidehuephoandthreecseuivbrecat
of the foreign lotteries, to which he had occasion some
time ago to allude. It was as follows :
" To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor of London.
" " Frankfort- on-the-Maine, Oct: 12, 1847.
My Lords—Observing in the London papers of