Star.
London, England, 1811-08-03 00:00:00

COURT 07 CHANCERY, AUGUSTE.

In the matter of the injunction applied for on Mon-
day List‘ to stop a nuisance, alledged to arise from
the noxious effluvia issuing from a soap manufactory
in the neighbourhood of Chelsea, the LORD CITAN•
CRILOR said, that the earliest case where such an ap-
plication was made to that Court, which he could
find on record, was one before Lord Chancellor Ba-
thurst, wherein the Duke of Grafton applied for an
injunction against a Mr. Hill, to put a stop to a nui-
sance, arising from his burning bricks in the fields,
near Hanover-square ; but the Lord Chancellor re-
fused to rant the injunction, as be did not consider
bricks being burnt near the habitations of men, for
the purpose of being made into habitations, as either
a public or private nuisance ; and his Lordship
thought the present case very similar. The principal
doubt which rested on his mind was, whether he had
any jurisdiction in such cases, where only the person
prosecuting in the indictment came into Court ; and
where the defendants do not resort to that Court in
any way whatever Had both the relators and the
defendants come into Court, former cases would have
wtrranted him in directing an issue to try the legality
as speedily as possible. This was certainly not an
original power in that Court, the first instance beit,
that of the Duke of Grafton above-mentioned. 'The
impression on his mind was, that he had no jurisdic-
tion in the present case—and if he had, be thought
it would be advancing with too rapid strides in a case
where there must be a great number of witnesses exa-
mined on both sides, to enjoin an issue to be tried at
the Surrey Assizes nest week. He had been think-
ing of a better way for both parties, to give them a
little more ume—it was of no consequence whether
the issue be tried in Sorrily or any of the neighbour-
ing counties.

3.IIIIiTT V. SWIM
This was* case of derourr;tr of some curiosity. The
facts as stated in the argument of Mr. HART, tor the
defendant, were these :
Some time since the plaintiff applied to the defen-
dant Henry Edward Swift, a Lottery-office-keeper,
for the purpose of purchasing shares of two particu-
lar tickets, Noi. 111 and 27, previously to their being
issued from the Bank of England. The plaintiff
placing a very mysterious faith in thos.: two tickets.
paid a gratuity of five shillings, which he was told by
defendant was customary in cases where a person
fired on a favourite number. These five shillings
went to a clerk in the Bank, who secured the
numbers for the ielons engaging them. In fine,
the plaintiff bespoke, and the defendant agreed
to obtain foe him this numbers specified. In the
sequel, however, he only procured the No. 111, one
quarter of which the plaintiff took; but the No. 27,
one half of which he had contracted to purchase,
never came into his possession. The No. 111 hap-
pened to come out a blank, but the other came out a
prize of £20,000. The plaintiff then b: aught his
action to recover the £lO,OOO to which the half-ticket
27 was entitled ; and by a bill in equity asked for a
discovery of certain particular facts, without the
knowledge of which, in evidence, his action could
not be supported. These facts were sought to be disco-
*ered in a series of questions put by plaintiff to defen-
dant, as to whether, in such cases, marks were usually
put on bespoke tickets while deposited in the Bank ?
whether defendant promised to bespeak and procure
the shares of the particular tickets for plaintiff ? whe-
ther he did not admit, in a conversation with others,
that he had agreed so to bespeak and procure them ?
whether the ss. were not actually paid for tir pur-
pose of having this mark affixed whether in part
fulfilmeat of their contract defendant did not procure
the ticket No. 111, itc.? To the answering of these
qaestions defendant demurred ; and in support of the
demurrer he (Mr. Hart) referred to the Act of Par-
liament, the 49th of George 111. which authorized
the drawing of the lottery in question. This Act de-
clared, that any person dividing tickets into shares,
or issuing chances in any manner but that specified
in the Act, should be subject to particular penalties.
It directed, that every share or agreement for a share
should be stamped is a form specified ; that persons
selling shares or chances except on stamped paper,
&lonic! forfeit £.50 for every such illegal act ; that
all persons taking out a licence should, before the
drawing, deposit in the Bank T5O shares, or SO whole
tickets, otherwise the licence wonld bc void ; that
those shares or tickets so deposited should not be sold
or disposed of previously to their being brought from
--. _
11

the Bank; and it further directed, that all persons the ship Catharine, from Cork to certain ports in
convicted under this Act of illegal transactions should I Spain, but not higher up the Mediterranean than
he deemed rogues and vagabonds, and given over to Tarragona, which policy was subscribed on the Ist
the justices of the peace to be punished accordingly. ! August, 1810, by the defendant, for £2OO, at a pre-
Such were the enactments of this Act ; and he con- mium of 15 guineas per cent. to return £3 upon ar-
tcaded, that by answering the bill of the plaintiff, his rival. It appeared that this vessel stopped at Gibral-
6ent would, by confession, impeach himself with tar, where she took in a quantity of staves and empty
two breaches of it. ' pipes, and soon afterwards sailed for Tarragona, off
Sir SAM= ROMILLT, for the plaintiff, said, that it • which place she arrived on the night of the eith of
was not extremely creditable for the defendant, after November, within 25 miles, and hoved to off Ellfark-
a breach of contract, to plead its illegality against the shoals, at the mouth of the river Ebro, for the pur-
consequences of its non-falfilment. lie contended, pose of making that port next morning. At that time
however, that an erroneous construction had been put pie Captain observed a light on shore from both the
upon the Act. It was a weal Act, and ought to be starboard and larboard bows, and after having re-
construed most strictly.: declarations of the Act tired to rest for a few hours, leaving his mate upon
did not bear againsi a previous agreement on the part the watch, he was astonished still to perceive these
of the defendant to do all in his power short of idling lights in pretty nearly a similar situation, but it turned
the tickets it was against the actual Jalt of the tickets out that during the night the vessel had been drifted
that the provisions of the Act were directed: it could by a very strong current, and the Captain soon after-
not be against agreements of this kind that the Legis. wards found that he was entering Barcelona, instead
/attire levelled the Act ; because, if the defendant had of Tarragona, and did not discover his error until she
agreed to obtain an indefinite number of tickets, surely was too far in to avoid a French force coming out and
such an agreement would not be illegal. taking her. The Captain of the vessel was a young
Loan CitANUILIPIL....." It would be necessary for man of 22 years of age, the son of the plaintiff, and,