The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-03 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 2.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court sat this morning for the purpose of delivering
ludgrnents in several cases that had stood over for considers—
Lion. Of those in which judgment was pronounced the follow—
ing were of more direct public interest !
ALLPORT V. NUTT.

In this case the plaintiff had declared in debt for 1001. 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 IL, had pleaded the general issue, and as to that sum pay-
ment of the amount into Court. He had also pleaded as to
the sum of 991., parcel of the moneys in the declaration men-
tioned, that a certain illegal game called " a lottery" was set
up and exposed, to be played 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 11., 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 tile
Derby should be written on a card, all of which cards
were to be placed in a box ; that a like proceeding
should take place with the names of the subscribers, and
that a drawing of names and horses should be made by two dis-
interested persons. The subscriber who drew the horse placed
by the judge 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 plaintiff, before
the Derby was run last year, drew Running Rein, the horse
which had been placed as winner by the judge, Mr. Clark,
whereby the plaintiff, according to the rules and regulations
of the said illegal game, became entitled to receive from the
defendant the said sum of 1001. The plaintiff demurred to this
plea, assigning, along with other causes of demurrer, that the
method of determining the right of the plaintiff to 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 Channell 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 case
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 bec ‘use the
plea showed a lottery, and because, admitting a bet, 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.
THORPE V. COLEMAN.
In this case the declaration in substance stated that the
plaintiff had laid a bet of 101. upon the event of the Derby in
1844; the defendant betting 101. that Campanero would win,
the plaintiff betting an equal sum that Orlando would win.
The defendant pleaded that the bet was illegal, and the plain-
tiff demurred to the plea. The demurrer was argued on the
10th of June, when Mr. Sergeant Byles, for the plaintiff, con-
tended that a bet of 10/. upon a legal horse-race was recover-
able at law ; and Mr. Sergeant Channell insisted that, although
any sum less than 10/. might be so recovered, that amount
could not. The Court took time to consider its judgment,
which was now pronounced by
Lord Chief-Justice TINDAL, to the effect, that as this was
a bet for the sum of 10/., the Court, without expressing an
opinion on, and certainly without having the intention of
expressing any doubt as to the propriety of, the decision of the
Court of Exchequer in the case of " Applegarth a. Collyer,"
10 Meeson and Welsby, 723, thought that, on looking at the
provisions of the second section of the 9th Anne, c. 14, this
action could not be maintained. By that section a person who
had voluntarily paid a bet of the value of 101., Made upon cer-
tain games, of which horse-racing was one, was entitled to sue
for and recover it back within three months then next: from
which the inference was that an action to recover a bet of that
value would not lie, if the person losing should refuse to pay
it. It was obviously the intention of the Legislature that
the loser should not ultimately lose, and that the gainer
should not ultimately gain—an intention which would be
better effected, and more in accordance with the spirit of the
law, which abhors circuity of action, by holding that an action
shall not lie against the loser to recover the bet, than by hold-
ing that it must first be paid, and then be recovered back in an
action. It had been said by Mr. Sergeant Byles that this
action was not brought to recover the money due on the bet,
but to recover damages for the breach of the promise to pay
the debt. The argument savoured too much of subtlety. The
duty of paying damages for the non-payment of money de-
pended on the duty of paying the money itself; and if a man
was not bound to pay a given sum of money, he was not liable
in damages for the neglect to pay it. It was further sug-
gested, that as the operation of the statutes against gaming
was suspended until the end of the then next session of Parlia-
ment, by the statutes of the 7th of Victoria, c. 3, and the
7th and Bth of Victoria, c. 58, the inference to be drawn from
the right of a loser to recover back the value of the bet which
he bad voluntarily paid no longer applied. But the Court did
not think that the Acts against gaming were suspended by the
statutes referred to, except in so far as the recovery of a pecu-
niary penalty was concerned. If they were suspended, it was
for a time only, and that suspension could not confer on any
one positive rights which he had not had before. The
statutes of Victoria were temporary Acts, passed to remedy a
temporary inconvenience; to the remedying that inconve-
nience they must be confined ; and they must not be permitted
to have incidentally the effect of altering the law. There must,
therefore, be judgment for the defendant.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 2.
FIELD GARDENS J3ILL.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD begged to disclaim
all personal offence to the Hon. Gentleman. All that he
intended to convey by the expression he used was. that
the operation of such principles would have the te.9dencY
of making the people slaves.
Mr. MANGLES perfectly agreed with the Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Roebuck) in his definition of theory, pro-
vided always that the theory was a sound one. It was
vain and utterly useless to set up the principle of the la-
bouring population living by wages. The question he
would ask was—could wages be got for them? The
fact wae, the people could not get wages. It was only a
short time ago that he met a labouring man, who had
been a considerable time out of work, and was unable to
procure any. The Hon. Gentleman would probably tell
the poor man to go into the union workhouse. This
man may have had too, prob ibly, a wife and children
If they laid down the principle that men were to
live by labour he would ask how were they to get it ?
Was the lion. Gentleman the Member for Bath lookitt
out of his parlour window on one of the squares of Lon--
don able to tell how labour could be procured ? No men
living by wages alone in his neighbourhood was able to
make out a comfortable subsistence. The Hon. and
Learned Member had stated that the labourers gene-
rally kept three pigs in his locality (Guildford)—that
was very rare. He would undertake to show the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman five men who had raised them-
selves by allotments to a comfortable condition, whereas
not one labourer could be shown who had so raised him-
self by his wages. He never knew one instance in
which allotments had been tried which had been attended
with failure. He believed that the system of wages as
it at present existed was calculated to lower the cha-
racter of the labourer in a moral point of view. The
man who lived exclusively upon wages was generally a
man of narrow mind.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that all the advantages which
the Hon. Gentleman extolled were the effect of the allot-
ment system, and would not be given by this Bill. He
had said when the Bill had come to the third reading he
would state the grounds on which he would oppose it.
The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had discussed
the measure with his usual vigour and force. The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State had taken up a
stronger position against the principles of the Bill than
the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. He would
contend that the present measure was a new parochial
system for granting relief in land to the labouring popu-
lation of the country, and if any portion of the labouring
population were of opinion that their condition would
be improved by this Bill, they would be egregiously
mistaken.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was the paramount
duty of the House to bring all their knowledge to bear
on the discussion of the measure, which had been brought
forward for the purpose of improving the condition of
the labouring classes. It would be proper to consider
whether the measure now tendered would conduce to
that great end or not, and to deliberate further with
respect to what might be called the impression out of
doors. He entirely concurred with several of the
leading maxims which had been laid down by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath. lie thought that the
labouring classes of the country must depend on labour
for subsistence. They must depend on the fruits of
their industry to be derived from the capital belonging
to others being judiciou,ly employed. It was absurd to
think that the industrious classes could derive their sup-
port from any other source. He would be extremely
happy to see the labouring population obtaining an in-
dependent subsistence from cultivating small districts of
land, but such a system was not compatible with
their present condition, and to introduce such
statewould
of be
th teo
paesassi
anni arytei
in the hler
el
loawnedr.
o
renatgselha?add been represented, reduced the
classes lfasts)hs' system
measure,
to tihnet wl7
wages of the labourers, it would, in his opinion, be the
most pernicious measure ever introduced. With respect
to the efficacy of any measure introduced with the idea
of aiding to the wages of the labourer, he had great
doubts. lie was bound to observe with great sorrow the
statement of the lion. Member for Surrey, that at the
present time, in the st•asoa of hay niahi rig, in that county
there were agricultural labourers who could not get
n went. Sorry us he he was at this state of things,
cheldliCllnot. believe that such a measure as that before the
House 'could afford a remedy, though he admitted that
such a plan would b better than no employment at all.
As the Bill now stood he had great doubts that it would
effect any amount of good. Ile saw, how ever, no danger
in the experiment, and therefore he was rot prepared to
state, on his own responsibility, that he would oppose the
progress of the Bill.
Mr. TR ELAWNEY should support the motion of the
lion. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), as he maintained
that the Bill would have the effect of lowering wages in-
stead of increasing them, b; cause it would diminish the
demand for labour. Believing this to be the case, he
should vote against the Bill.
Mr. S. V. ORT LEY should support the Bill, as wher-
ever the system had been triedit had worked well, and the
physical as well as the moral condition of the labourers
had improved, instead of retrograded.
Mr. BRIGHT said be should vote for the motion of
the Honourable Member for Bath, as the Bill would
place the labourer in a more dependent state than here-
tofore, and because it would increase the number of pau-
pers and the mass of suffering and misery extant in the