The Sun.
London, England, 1824-08-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Arousr 17.
LOTTERY, PRIZE.
GERRARD versus LAWLESS.
It will be recollected that in this case the plaintifihad come
into the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain the de-
fendant from receiving the 16th of a' prize of 20,0001. in the
Lottery. The plaintiff had held one hilt of the 16th and the
defendant the other half. The defendant had gone to the
plaintiff on the morning after the prize was actually drawn, but
before that fact was known to the plaintiff. After some con-
venation upon • the subject they agreed to toss up whether the
plaintiff should buy the defendant's or the defendant the plain-
tiff's share. The toss-up gave the plaintiff's share to the de-
defendant. The Lord Chancellor had suggested an issue, as
the must likely mode of preventing the prize becoming a blank
in the Court of Equity.
Mr. Hon NE, for the plaintiff, said he understood the terms
of the issue to be, " whether Lawless knew at the time of the
toss-up that the ticket had be drawn prize."
The Lonn. CHANcEt.tott-41*_panls "toss-up" may
not app.*r veil decent in an JIMA time would perhaps
be a fitter limit.

Air. Hon doubted whether they could agree upon the
time.

The Loan CHANCELLOR—The real object of an issue, and
the point upon which you must wish to have the decision of a
Court of Law, is, whether there was fraud on the part of I giw-
less—that is, whether at the time of the tossing up he was as
ignorant of the ticket having been drawn a prize as the plain-
tiff' was.

Mr. HonNE —Yes, my Lord ; but the tossing up is really
the transaction involving the fraud, and transferring the prize
from the plaintiff to the defendant.
Mr. lIEALD, for the defendant, thought there could be no
controversy as to the time. My client has a great deal of money
withheld from him, to which the plaintiff makes no claim.—
What is most important, and mast desirable for my client, is a
speedy decision of the question.
Mr. HORNE obtained permission to consider the force of the
Issue, and to mention it to-morrow morning. If it should not
be mentioned, the issue was agreed to be, whether there was
fraud on the part of the defendant, by knowing at the time of
tossing up that the ticket was drawn a prize.

EXPARTE GIBSON, IX ILE PATIENCE WOOD, A LEXATIC.
11r. Arian stated, that this was the Petition of the Corn.
mittee, by whose advice the patient had been placed in the care
and custody of her sister and brother-in-law, Thomas and
Judith Troughton, against whom he now alleged various
instances of abuse and ill-treatment towards his charge ; among
other things, that he found her at one of those visits in a state
of insufficient clothing: that she was debarred from air and
exercise, anti had been deprived of the attendance of the ser-
vant who had accompanied her at her own request when she
quitted Brooke-house Asylum, at Clapton, in 1819 ' • and lastly,
that on his last visit they had not only refused to let him see
her, but had put him and his surety in charge of. the constable
of C.arshalton.
Mr. HEALD denied the whole of the allegations, and hoped
that the Court would make this petitiOn an example, by sen-
tencing the petitioner to pay his cams; for certainly a more
vexatious and wasteful management of his trust, no commit-
tee could be guilty of. The patient had lost her reason on
the death of her husband, and one of the questions put by
him on visiting her was, " would she like to walk out and
see the tomb of her husband ?" Aa to the discharge of her
attendant, It took place in consequence of the lunatic herself
persisting to exclude her, being ever since attended by her
own niece, and apparently with much more satisfaction. The
story of the scanty clothing had no better foundation. The
lunatic was fantastic in her dress, and chose to wear a dress-
ing-gown over all her other vestments. On the day observed
upon, she was perfectly dressed; but she happened to wear
a gown with what was called a low body ; the IlAnnel wrap-
per over it happened to be unpinned ; a corner of it fell
down, and exposed her neck, left perhaps too bare by the
sort of dress which she thtti ha 4 on. The petitiOner must
have beat perfectly coevlrocet.thestVie-Wia 'well treated; ter
ho had. west scandalously neglected his duty; Cu. from 181%
when .she was removed At his ropiest to her present •atintle,
till July in last year, he had made no complaint or remon-
strance whatsoever.

The Loan CHANTerr.r.on thought that the time elapsed
since the removal of the lunatic from Brook-house till now,
Was proof that the petitioner did not consider that she was
ill treated, and he Kaw nothing in the affidavits to induce
him to grant the immediate order for the removal prayed
by him. lie would, however, direct a porson properly qua-
lified to visit her, and report if any thing was really want-
ing to her health and comfort; upon which the Court would
ascertain if there existed any reason for interposing its autho-
rity, and act accordingly.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Ara. 17.
(13,:firre the Master of the Rolle.)
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
IN Tim NATTER OF RAWDAL.
r. James Howard
11 a3nldra.lB, ILE xcicntli:niliiitotvettid ttohatthtehceudsetorednydomf defendant,
Serjeant at Arms
of the Court, for contemptuous disobedience of the orders of
the Court. _ _

Mr. Rom,EL, for the defendant, asked whether notice of
this motion had been served cti the defendant.
Mr. SPENCE answered in the affirmative.

HOOPEL denied that his client had been served with
notice. It was extraordinary that a man should be committed
to the Serjeant without any previous knowledge of such a
process.
Mr. SPENCE repeated his assertion of the service of the
notice ; he held in his hand an affidavit alleging the fact.
Mr. HOUPEL still denied that the defendant had received
personal notice.
Mr. SPENCE stated that the affidavit alleged personal ser-
vice on the defendant at his place near Hatton-garden. The
circumstances were these :—The Court had issued an order
requiring the defendant to put in an answer to the excel).
tions and amendments of the plaintiff's original bill be-
fore the 6th of May last. The defendant did put in his
answer to the amendments at the proper time, but omit-
ted Ming an answer to the exceptions.—This omission was
in itself a disobedience of the orders of the Court.—
However, the Court having been applied to, granted an
indulgence of further time for that object to the defendant, and
made an order on the 28th of June requiring him to put in his
answer to the exceptions before the 12th of August., under the
penalty Of subjecting himself to the custody of the Serjeant-at-
Arma as on a writ of rebellion. 'Th.e.l2th of August . arrived,
.yet the defendant had not Sled WI answer—had disobeyed the
orders of the Court:--and incurred the consequences. Mr.
Spence therefore submitted that the order for committal to the
Serjeiht should go against the defendant.
.MrAttitiPEr., for the defendant, stated that his client ltad
'complied with the more material parts of the order, namely,
those relative to the transfer of stock ; he trusted that his Lord.'
hip:would extend the prescribed time a little farther for the
bbedidifeenf the order.
SPENcE replied—Time enough had already been grant-
,
etttoprep
are an answev the_case was a most gross instance Of
delay ; the process of the Court were not enforced it would
beCome *ionic than useless. He expected tile order as a matter
of tottrsv; but would not object to a suspension of its execution
for any time that may appear reasonable to his Lordship.
Mr. RouPEL asked the suspension of a month.
The MasTzn OF THE BOLLS would grant three weeks.