The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-24 00:00:00

I thought he was turning Catholic for a good reason, or
because he knew anything at all about it, I would not
say a word against him ; but for a fellow like
him, ignorant and stupid as he is, to go jaw-
ing with a priest. I can't bear it.
The LORD MAYOR—Now, can't you manage to settle
this matter between yourselves, particularly as you are
brothers? Complainant—My Lord, my wife was almost
frightened out of her life. I thought she'd have died i
when I constructed her up stairs.
The LORD MAYOR—Be good enough to let me know
what you mean by constructing her up stairs. Com-
plainant—Why, my Lord, carrying her up in a bundle.
I couldn't do it in any other way in her sitivation, and I
was obligated to take her out of the way. My family
are
all opposed to the priest, and I don't think its fair,
and I won't stand it.
The LORD MAYOR—WeII, the defendant must enter
into his own recgnizances to keep the peace.
The defendant—Very well, my Lord, but I don't like
the priest, and no mistake ; and, but for the religion, my
ondetfhe eh
dhaunt b
tmug,he hi t
twp-loeudlgde bde
himself
rsiegiht
carTrhye
brother and I would never have a word, and if he didn't
was discharged. tnever to give
cause for suspecting that he would act with violence, and

ofintJames
j/d/
ai sam,
et, hs) eerl
Cuthbert,
yndal
sweep
rode pGoo
fft
to
tt/hhbLeee
drawn
dgle,Lsnn
eyaa
sdtl
lot
public-house,
bba
et e efot ,r was v Summonedinc unlawfully to answer
knowingly
uf-
Distaff-lane, ieDswt aEgffna-: ens SWEEPS—IMPORTANT DECISION.— William
, in
t
se,
a againstsked trh. ec
ht eandosr,
wohf theappolaicreendsfeorgtrhaendteedientoce,h
Alderman WILSON, before proceeding withohiwiece
ih-.
.cnthhiohgsoomluuhypssoelesua
o
contrary to the form of the statute in such case,made
and provided.
m whether and
the case,
his client produced his license.
Mr. Childs said he declined doing
so.
Alerman WILSON observed that at the sessions no
publican or his solicitor refused the production of it
when requested.
Mr. Cnilds replied that there was some difference in
this case. At the sessions the publicans were summoned
by the police; but here was a person coming in the cha-
racter of a common informer, and therefore he should
leave h;m to prove his case.
Sir P. LAURIE asked whether the defendant kept the
house in question on the particular day named ?—Mr.
Wontner replied that he should be able to prove that tact.
Mr. Wontner then said that he appeared to support a
complaint against Mr. 'Willis, under a clause in the Act
for the regulation of alehouses. One of the clauses
imposed a fine if they committed any offence against
the tenor of their licenses, and one of the conditions of
the license was that they should not " knowingly suffer
any unlawful gaming, or any gaming whatsoever."
In contravention of this, it was charged against the
defendant that he suffered a scrt of lottery to be
drawn at his house. It was announced as a Mon-
ster Derby Sweepstakes of 2,000 subscribers, at ss.
each ; the first prize to be 3001. ; the second,
801.; and the third, 40/.; with 261. 10s. to be divided
amongst starters ; the prize to be determined by the
running of the Derby race ; but it was also to be deter-
mined by drawing a lottery on a day anterior to the
race. 'I he complainant subscribed for three tickets, and
received three scrips, numbered 157, 209, and 930. On
the 22d the drawing took place, and one of the horses
given to him in exchange for his numbers was Springy
Jack, a favourite in the betting. This horse was drawn
against the ticket 930, as appeared on the face of the
card, and ultimately turned out to be a prize, it being
the second horse, which entitled the holder to a sum of
80/. When he applied about it he was told by Mrs.
Willis that some mistake had occurred, that she had
given him the ticket 930, but he had never given her the
scrip belonging to it, and that the prize belonged to
another party. He went again, when he was informed
that the money had been handed over to the right per-
son, and that if he intended to get redress the landlord
would bet him 10/. he would never recover one sixpence.
The complainant, conceiving the whole thing was a
swindle, thought it was but right to bring the whole
affair under the notice of the licensing magistrates. It
might as well be mentioned that the money subscribed
would amount to 5001., and the prizes payable out of it
would be 4461. 10s., leaving a balance to the landlord of
53/. 10s., besides all the profits arising from the 2,000
customers drinking at his house. He said nothing of
the per centage of 5 per cent. to be deducted when the
winnings were paid.
Mr. Thos. Wm. George, clerk, residing at No. 79,
Jubilee-street, stated that he purchased three 'lumbers.
The tickets given to him were numbered, 157, 209, 930.
Mr. Wontner asked Mr. Childs if he intended to pro-
duce the scrip certificate marked 930, of which he had
received due notice?—Mr. Childs here handed it to Mr.
Wontner, who gave it to witness.
Mr. George, after examining it, said that he did not
believe it to be the one he gave in for his ticket, as the 9
on that produced was not so large, neither had it so long
a tail as the one on the scrip he gave in. On the 23d of
May, the day after the draw, he went to ascertain if he
had got a prize, but had not his scrip with him. He
found, on reference to his book, that he had drawn one
of the favourite horses, called " Springy Jack," but he
could not receive his ticket, as he had not the scrip to
give in exchange. In three-quarters of an hour after
he returned with the scrip, when Mrs. Willis con-
gratulated him on his good fortune, and gave
him the ticket which he now produced, bearing
the name of " Springy Jack," with the number 930.
On the same evening he went to the house with a
friend, and, in consequence of hearing some conversa-
tion in the parlour, he went to the bar, when Mrs.
Willis said that he had given her scrip for 940, and not
for 930, and that she had made a mistake in giving over
the ticket to him. He asserted that he gave her the
scrip marked 930. On the settling day, Friday, May
26, he went, accompanied by Mr. Cuthbert, who pre-
sented the ticket for payment, when he was informed by
the secretary that Mr. Willis paid all moneys at the bar,
in consequence of which they went down stairs and
handed that person the ticket, who referred them to Mrs.
Willis, who was in the parlour. Ho was then told that
the ticket he produced was 130, instead of 930, and pay-
ment was finally refused.
Other evidence in support of the charge having been
given, Mr. Childs replied that he could show that there
had been no fraud whatever in this transaction, but that
was a question which should be more properly mooted
on the licensing day, if any imputation was thrown on
Mr. Willis's character.

Sir PETER LAURIE said, he had been twenty years
chairman of the Marylebone Licensing Sessions, and
there were nearly 300 public-houses in the division. The
bench had notified that they were unanimously of opinion
that the license of any house should be withheld where
such practices were permitted, and he believed there did
not exist a single house that had infringed the rule.
Mr. Childs said that Mr. George had boldly sworn
that the ticket produced was not the one he had pur-
chased. He could produce the counterpart of the scrip
130 to show that_ that was the number be had actually
purchased.
Aiderman WILSON asked if Mrs. Willis did not say
that the mistake was 940, instead of 930.
Mr. Childs said that Mrs. Willis denied making such
an assertion, and called the Alderman's attention to the
fact that the mistake was discovered, and the matter
disputed, not after " Springy Jack" had won the prize,
but the day before the race came off.
Alderman WILSON said that neither he nor Sir Peter
Laurie would give any opinion on that subject.
Mr: Childs said that Mr. Willis had always conducted
within the meaning of the Act.
Sir P. ngLiIIRIEwas very glad Mr. Cuthbert had
his establishment on the most honourable principle, and
his answer to the charge was that the fact alleged was
nots
brought the Ziafter before the public, as he had no doubt
but an immense deal of good would be effected by its
publicity.
Mr. Childs said, that when the proper time arrived
he would be able to prove that his conduct was honour-
able throughout the transaction.
Alderman WILSON wished to know whether Mr.
Childs contended that the mode of conducting those
sweeps was not gaming?
Mr. Childs declined arguing the point.
themser.Dwerobuytna
aitncsablocuutlatbwleo.
ewreespaisd that Sir P. LAURIE observed that the mischief done by
years back, on the
occasion of a letter-carrier being tried at the Old Bailey
for robbing the Post-office, Mrs. Willis received a severe
lecture from Baron Alderson, who expressed it as his
opinion that he had been completely ruined by frequent-
ing her house.
Air PETER LAURIE was very glad Mr. Wontner had
mentioned that fact.
Alderman WILSON called Mr. Childs' attention to the
preamble of 10 Wm. 111. c. 17, as showing that illegal
lotteries were deemed gaming.
Sir PETER LAURIE said such lotteries are illegal.
Alderman WILSON said it was time the mischief should
be stopped, as if mistakes should occur at such a house
as Mr. Willis's, what might be expected at the beer-
shops, to which these Derby sweeps had descended, and
where the parties understood nothing of writing or the
keeping of accounts like Mr. George ?
The magistrates then retired, and, upon returning,
Mr. Alderman WILSON said tbat they were unani-
mously of opinion that Derby sweeps were lotteries;
that lotteries were gaming, gnu that it was a breach of
the license to allow them to be conducted. at any licensed
house. They therefore adjudged the !defendant to pay a
penalty of 51. and the costs.
Mr. Cuthbert gave his moiety of the fine to the poor-
box.

Mr. Childs intimated that he should appeal.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

SUADII,O,/ OF EXEUCISE.—We stated on Thursday we
believed Sir Charles Napier would put to sea in about
ten days with a squadron to exercise their crews in the
Channel. The 10th proximo is the day fixed upon for
the departure of the squadron, which, like similar de-
monstrations, will sail from Shithead. The vessels in-
tended as the Channel squadron will comprise Sir
Charles Napier's flag-ship, the St. Vincent, 120 guns,
Captain S. C. Dacres ; the Prince Regent, 90 guns,
Captain W. F. Martin; the Blenheim, 56 guns, Captain
Austen, C. 8.; the Powerful, 84 guns, Captain, the lion.
Robert Dundas, C. 8.; the Amphion, 36 guns, Captain
W. Williams; the Frolic sloop, 16 guns, Commander
Nicholas Vansittart; the: Helena sloop, 16 guns, Com-
mander Smith; and probably the Rolla, apprentice's
training brig, in the charge of an experienced officer;
all the foregoing ships are at Portsmouth; the Tweed,
20-gun corvette, Commander F. Russell; and the Pilot,
16-gun sloop, Commander E. M. Lyons, fitting out at
Plymouth, are also ordered to join the squadron, and,
if ready in time, the Reynard, 60-horse screw sloop,
will be added to the number. The Dragon steam-fri-
gate, Captain Hall, is ordered to proceed from the Cove
of Cork to Spithead to join the squadron. After this
cruise it is reported Sir Charles Napier will shift his
flag into the Caledonia, 120-gun ship (now in Plymouth
Sound), and take her to the Mediterranean.