The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-04 00:00:00

EXPARTR VAN SANDAU.

His LORDSHIP stated that in the case of Mr. Van Sandau
he had considered it from time to time with great anxiety, and
after that consideration he was of opinion that he ought not to
interfere in the present stage of the case unless Mr. Van Sandau
consented to put an end to the suit. If he went nn with the suit,
his Lordship could not tell on what scale the jury would dispose
of the damages, and until he knew what the jury would do,
he could not dispose of the different orders that had been made; if,
however, Mr. Van Sandau would consent to put an end to the suit
he wo ild dispose of the various orders the next day he sat. Mr.
Van Sandau need not state at that moment what course he would
pursue; he had better consider of it.

Mr. BAGSHAWE said that the trial stood on the paper for Satur-
day, and Mr. Van Sandau elected to go on with the trial.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Very well. You must take care to
have an accurate account of what goes on at the trial.
Mr. BAGSHAWR—Certainly, my Lord, we shall have a short-hand
writer to take notes of what occurs.

ROLLS' COURT, July 3.
The MASTER of the ROLLS took motions to.day, it being the
second seal after Trinity Term, but no case of any particular inte •
rest came before the Court.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, July 3.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND took motions
to-day.
THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OP CHESTER V. THE CHESTER AND
HOLYHEAD RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. BETURLL moved in this case upon notice, on behalf of the
Mayor end Corporation of Chester, for an injunction to restrain the
Chester and Holyhead Railway Company from carrying their line, as
they proposed to do, near the Chester race-course. The
application was supported by the affidavits of several individuals, all
of whom stated if the proposed line was carried out it would have
the effect of ruining the race-course, which had existed for more
than a century.
His HONOUR dismissed the motion with costs.

(Before the Vice-Chancellor KNIGHT Mime.)
Motions, it being the second seal, and the arguments in the case
of Pannell v. Hurley, occupied the Court the whole day.
(Before the Vice-Chancellor WICIRI3I.)
His Honour took motions and causes to-day, none of which pos-
sessed any points of interest.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCII,JuIy 3.
(Sittings in Banco, before the full Court.)
POE AND STAUNTON.-JUDGMENT.

Lord DRNMAN gave judgment in this case. His Lordship said
that this was a motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirec-
tion. The action was originally brought against the defendant for
the infringement of a patent nipping lever, intended to sim-
plify the turning of ships' windlasses. No question was raised
as to the utility of the invention. The Learned Judge on
the trial, in summing up, had told the jury that though the applica.
tion was new the plaintiff did not claim the invention of the nip..
ping lever; awd it was contended on the part of the defendant that
the old lever applied to a new purpose did not constitute a right
of patent, and his Lordship seemed to be also of this
opinion. In the present case the means for applying
the old invention to the new purpose was what was
termed a sliding box, and that being aho e novel invention, the
Court was of opinion that the patent must be supported. The
Learned Judge in the original case had told the jury that it was
not necessary to inquire if the sliding box was a new invention, but
from this opinion the Court entirely dissented. Tbey thought the
jury had been misdirected by the mode in which the case had been
stated to them, and they were agreed therefore that the rule fir a new
trial should be made absolute, in consequence of the mode in which
the case had been put to the jury.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)

The Court sat this morning for the purpose of delivering
udgments in several cases that had stood over for eonsidera-
ion. Of those in which judgment was pronounced the follow-
ng were of more direct public interest
A LLPOICT V. NUTT.

In this case the plaintiff had declared in debt for 100/. for
money had and received to the plaintiff's use, and for 100/.
upon an account stated. The defendant, except as to the sum
of 1/., had pleaded the general issue, and as to that sum pay-
ment of the amount into Court. lie had also pleaded as to
the sum of 99/., parcel of the moneys in the declaration men-
tioned, that a certain illegal game called " a lottery" was set
up and exposed, to betplayed by the defendant, at a certain
public-house in the City of London, which " illegal game
called a lottery" was what in sporting circles is designated
a " Derby sweep." The conditions and regulations of this
"sweep" were, that the subscribers should net exceed 155 in
number, each contributing 1!., and paying his subscription to
the defendant, who was to be the treasurer; that before
the race was run the name of each horse entered for the
Derby should be written on a card, all of which cards
were to be placed in a box ; that a like pi oceening
should take place with the names of the subscribe s, and
that a drawing of names and horses should be made by t dis-
interested persons. The subscriber who drew the horse place.l
by the ju ige as the winner of the race was to be entitled to
receive a sum of 100/. out of the money subscribed from the
defendant. The plea further alleged that the rlaintiff, before
the Derby was run la,t year, drew Ruining Rein, he horse
which had been ['laved as winner by the judge. Mr. Clark,
whereby the plain7iff, according to the anti r,
of the said game, became entitled ro rect•ive treat tlic
defendant the said sum of 100/. The plain iff demur,ed tot his
plea, assigning, along with other causes of demurrer, that the
method of determining the right of the plaintiff te the money
claimed was not an illegal game or a lottery, but a mode of
betting by each of the subscribers to a small and legal amount
upon a legal horse-race; and also that the plea amounted to
the general issue.
The case was argued in Easter Term by Mr. Sergeant Byles
in support .f the demurrer, and Mr. Sergeant Chann,ll in
support of the plea, when the Court thought the question of
such importance as to require further consideration. Judgment
was now delivered by
Lord Chief-Justice TINDAL, to the effect that in the opi-
nion of the Court, the statutes against lotteries were not re-
stricted in application to those lotteries only in which an unfair
advantage might be taken. The Court was bound to give
effect to clear words of prohibition, and to pronounce this lot-
tery illegal. The statute of the 10th William 111., c. 17,
especially declared all lotteries to be public nuisances; the
statute of the 42d George 111., c. 119, declared the lotteries
called " little-goes" to be common and public nuisances, and
against the law; and without acting in contravention of the
express words of these statutes, the Court could not hold such
lotteries as that under consideration to be excepted from the
general prohibition. It had been contended that in the rase
of each subscriber there had been a bet on a lawful race, and:
that therefore the wager had been lawful. This argument the .
Court was of opinion could not be sustained, both bee Luse the
plea showed a lottery, and because, admitting a het, still it was
one on which the plaintiff could not answer. The Court was
also of opinion that a special plea was necessary•to bring the
defence properly before the Court. There must therefore be
judgment for the defendant.