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

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 reasonable that he would not
argue that point further. The moment that de.
cision took place plaintliT 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 he 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 had 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 persons 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.yillshire was then called, and proved that he

had paid defendant a guinea towards aDerby sweep,
and that, after the race in 1844, 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 tne 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, 1.844; 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 moaey, and if you per-
sist in your action I'll plead the illegality of the whole
proceeding."
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. WaLLINoan 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 amicus curia, stated that it was
the every-day practice in the Courts at Westminster
fur 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.
Yesterday the LORD MAYOR said he had received a
letter from Frankfort-on• the-Maine upon the subject
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.M.tine, Oct. 12, 1847.
"My Lord,—Observing in the London papers of
S iturday, the 2d inst., under the:head Mansion-
house,' a report in which the name of our firm is
mentioned, and in a way manifestly calculated to
cast a slur upon the integrity of certain Government
transactions for which we are appointed agents, we
cannot but regret that your Lordship should have
allowed yourself to be made the vehicle for circulating
the unwarrantable remarks of a Mr. Smith, M.D.,
of Forfar.
" With respect to the charges contained in Mr.
Smith's letter, your Lordship would have adopted a
much wiser course (if your Lordship really doubted
the integrity of those matters) to have inquired into
the facts before lending the weight and influence of
the magisterial office to give effect to the aspersions of
an unknown busybody, of whom your Lordship does
not appear to have known anything whatever.
" I beg to apprise your Lordship that the trans-
actions alluded to in Mr. Smith's letter are strictly
bone fide Government engagements, entered into by
permission and with the sanction of the Government,
conducted throughout under the strictest Govern-
ment surveillance, and are in all respects (not even
excepting the character and standing of the agents)
as honourably and punctually conducted as any Go-
vernment transaction in England.
"I beg to apprise your Lordship that you are in
error in regard to the illegality of these transactions.
I have taken the opinions of eminent English counsel
on the subject, and their opinion is that my mode of
doing business does not touch upon any Act of Par-
liament.
"Not, however, that I allow that a commercial
man is bound to regard the internal laws of another
,country whilst doing a business in strict accordance
with the laws of his own country. These transactions
are legal here, they are legal all over Germany; they
are conducted by the first merchants and bankers on
the continent, and I do not, therefore, admit (even
supposing them illegal in your country), that I am
bound to be influenced in the natural and usual exer-
cise of my business by the internal regulations that
may he made abroad.
" I presume that no British merchant will dispute
this position. It is tolerably well known that the vast
trade of Great Britain is carried in in defiance of the
internal laws of many nations. I believe it does not
detract from the respectability of the British mer
chant that he inundates China with thousands of tons
of opium in open and known violation of the laws of
the Chinese empire ; nor does it detract from his re-
spectability that what he does in China he does in
many other parts of the world.
" Your Lordship will excuse the warmth that I
feel in discussing this subject. You will make allow-
ance for my excitement at finding myself pilloried by
give lwlriisdh _ letteriwee
circulation,
Lord Mayor of London * * * and all this
your
injury done me, because a busybody in Scotland has
chosen.e foolish to write a foolish letter to your Lordship,
which
Lordshipfitbyrehaadsintghoitugfrhotm thteo
judgment seat of the Mans.ion-house."
[The letter conclude
Mayor to give the same wtecalling upon the Lord
to Mr. Smith's representPaution,iatLt?sit that_ was given
"GEORGE vouttred] jun.„