Star.
London, England, 1810-06-28 00:00:00

LITTLE GOES.--.IVALKEIt U. ISUNCLE.

This was. an action brought to recover money paid
on an illegal consideration.
Mr. Gattuow, after some very strong observations
on that spirit of gambling, of which the Little Go lot-
ter.es were the chief supports, stated, that the plain-
tiff, a bricklayer, having laid by a considerable sum
of money, to answer an engagement is hich he bad
made, found, on inquiry, his coffers empty, and that
the purloiner was his own wire. A Little Go had
offered her such incitements as she could not with-
rand ; and the present action was lirought by Will-
Ver to recover, from the principal agent of this nefa.
I ions lottery, the money which had been thus obtain-
ed, and thus expended.
Sarah Cartwright, a child of about thirteen, a niece
of the plaintiff's wife, deposed, that she (the witness)
WAS employed by her to make insurances in the
j.ittl.• Go. The lottery in which she insured was
'drawn in the morning ; it was called Marter's Go,
and continued drawing for 37 days. The fir .t insur-
ance which she made was about 12s. She went re-1
gularly every day after, during 34 days, artd never
paid less than one pound, and from that to four.-1
She.once paid five pounds. She went sometimes with
and sometimes without her aunt, as she (Walker's
wife) could not always leave home at the drawing-
hour, through fear of detection by her husband.
—There were two successive Little Goes ; one
called Hodges's, began a short time after Marter's
Aided. The former was drawn in the afternoon, and
attended with equal regularity by the daughter of
the plaintiff's• wife. The process or insuring was
very simple. Witness carried the lists. of the fa-
vourite numbers to the office every morning, and
paid the money which Buncle the agent directed her
to pay. About twelve o'clock each day Buncle
came out of an inner room, where the drawing was
supposed to have gone on, into the parlour, where all
the adventurers were assembled, and there gave them
little dockets of the numbers which had been drawn
blank or prize. Those who had insured had no
means of ascertaining any thing further, than as he
told them, of the fate of their insurances. The wit-
ness was present afterwards at a conversation between
the plaintiff's wife and Buncle, in which, on her (the
plaintiff's wife) charging Buncle with inducing her
to throw away £BO in his lottery, he did not deny
that a sum to that amount had been laid out with
him. This girl's testimony was given with remark-
able clearness, and seemed to excite great interest in
the Court.

Mary Walker, the Plaintiff's daughter, deposed,
that her employment was to attend the drawing of
Hodges's Go. She attended for thirty days, and
paid there, sometimes two, sometimes three, and
even so much as five pounds for insurances. Buncle
bad been a boot-maker ; but since April, 1809, when
this transaction took place, he had given up his trade,
and acted as agent of the Little Go.
Bantle: had, with reference to the present action,
been held to bail in £4O.
Mr. PARKE, in an able address to the Jury, while
be declared himself altogether unwilling to undertake
any defence of vile and fraudulent gambling, com-
mented on the discreditable conduct of the woman,
who could attempt to initiate two children, such as
they then appeared before them, in the whole mys-
tery of the transaction. Her prime object must have
been a view to recover, by their testimony, the money
which she had risked in insurance ; and the Jury
would not, of course, think her entitled to much
commiseration.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH slid, the money paid in this
ease being for an illegal consideration, the plaintiff
was clearly entitled to recover it back. There was
nothing to discredit the witnesses, and the only ques-
tion was, how much had been paid ? As to this, the
evidence was altogether indefinite, except as to an as-
sertion by the plaintiff's wife, not denied by the de-
fendant, that she had expended £BO. As justly re-
marked by the Counsel for the defendant, why, if the
claim was for £BO, hold the defendant to bail for
£e4fl? The plaintiff's own mind should best suggest
to him the amount of his claim, and the Jury might
fairly take the plaintiff's own oath in reduction of his
demand. Verdict for the Plaintiff, Forty Pounds.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JUNE 27.

TILE PRINCE OF WALES v. SIR JOIDI ST. ALBIN AND

OTIIERS.

. This was an information filed by the Attorney-Ge-
neral of the Prince of \Vales, as Duke of Cornwall, to
compel the defendants to relinquish the right of soil on
a part of the river Tamer, between high and low wa-
ter mark, where they have erected a wharf and other
buildings. The place in dispute is claimed by his
Royal Highness, as belonging to the Duchy of Corn-
wall. It appeared that a lease of land adjoining the
spot in dispute, had been grantee! fur 99 years (which
included three lives) to B. Tucker, Esq. Surveyor-
General to his Royal Highness. The encroachments
stated to have been made by the defendants on the
premises of Mr. Tucker, consequently became the
foundation of the proceedings, which came before
the Court this day on a demurrer. The principal
objections were a denial that the Prince of Wales
could proceed by his Attorney General filing an in-
formation.
This was described to be irregular, and
not cognizable by law. It was contended that the
pr per process, was by ejectment, and that the Prince
could only proceed by the law, which every Noble-
man was bound to submit to in support of his claim
to lan¢ed property.
Mr. DALLAS and Mr. WETHERALL, who argued in
support of the demurrer, cited a variety of cases to
prove that the proceedings were irregular. The
Court of Exchequer was stated to be a Court for the
recovery of property belonging to the Crown, and it
was argued that a process like the present, to recover
tne claims of the Prince of Wales, could not be sus-
majled.

The SOLICITOR GENINRAL answetred the objections,
and stated a number of precedents to prove that the
Prince of Wales had constantly supported his claims
as Duke of Cornwall by his Attorney General.--. In
several reigns, when the minority of the Prince of
IWales had required protection, the Crown had issued
letters patent to empower a person who had been ap-
pointed Attorney General to the Prince, to enforce
his claims as Duke of Cornwall, and in this character
that officer of his Royal Highness's Household had
been received by the Judges. In the reign of James
the First the Prince had vindicated his rights through
the medium of his Attorney-General. Judge Parke,
and all the Lawyers of his tinfe, Were of opinion
that the Prince had a right to proceed by his Attor-
ney ; but it appeared that the luminaries of the pre-
sent day had considered Judge Parke ignoramus.—
They had discovered that this proceeding was irre-
gular ; but the Court would not, with too much
haste, refuse to abide by the opinions of the great and
distinguished Lawyers, who had already determined
the question. How were they to adopt precedents,
if the most respectable authorities were to be deni-
ed ? The Judges who acknowledged the right of the
Prince of Wales to proceed by his Attorney General
had been wrong in toto, if the demurrer could be sus-
tained. It was supposed that the interest which the
lease vested in Mr. Tucker, had prevented the Prince
of Wales from maintaining the present process, but
the Prince had an interest in that lease. It was held
for the benefit of his Royal Highness, who was there-
fore entitled to sustain the information. His Royal
Highness was bound, for the interest Of the Pubiic,
to see that this property should not be encroached
upon. Was there any ground, under these circum-
stances, on which to found the blame which had been
thrown en the Prince's officers ? Was it not prose.
cuted for the benefit of the public ? What would
have been said if different means had been adotred
It would have been said that they had abandoned the
rights entrusted to their care. He had said thus much
to vindicate the honour and character of those consti-
tutional officers who had interfered in this proceed-
' ing, and to do away any idea of improper proceed-
ings, and he wished to enable every man to try the
question on the fairest principles, and to have it de-
cided, whether the property in question belonged to
an individual, or whether it was not to be protected
as part of the Duchy of Cornwall ?
Sir ARTHUR Proorr followed on the same side,
and contended, that if any part of the proceedings
was sustained by the Court, it would be fatal to the
demurrer. Their Lordships had heard a great num-
ber of cases which they might consider prematine,
because the Court was not then called on to decide on
the issue of the claim. The facts were there : his
Royal .Highness the Prince of Wales f!,a ived, by the
11 th of Henry the 111. the grant of the waters of
Tamar, as part of the possessions of the Duchy of
Cornwall : That the deftndants had encroached of
late years on the soil, by building wharfs on the Ta
mar, which belonged to a part of the Dtichy of Corn-
wall, leased to Mr. Tucker. It was with surptive he
heard observations made on the conduct c f those wh,,
had instituted this process, those who were the con-
stitutional advisers of the Prince of Wales, appointed
by the Crown to watch the rights of the Duchy. He
was surprized to hear some of' the topics, because an
offer had been made to the defendants to give them a
lease of the soil on which they had erected their
buildings, free of expence, on condition that they
should give up the right of soil. They had, how-
ever, refused this gift, and, instead of meeting the
claim in a proper manner, had sheltered themselves
under a demurrer, which would have no other effect
than to increase the expence. He then contended, in
a long speech, that the officers of his Royal Highness
had proceeded in a constitutional mode, and that the
information had been conducted with regularity.
The Court then rose, and postponed the further
'hearing to a future day.