Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-12-22
.A;,,r Yc;k Gsne.>a Sessions. December !.

OSrfhbtr q.
riE rEofLE rs. THOMAS oARLAsD.
Tickets Is
Garland was indicted under the act of 1919, 70, |
Keeping an office FOR registering lottery tickets and
also Tor insurance of lottery tickets.
The indictment charged THAT the Isl day of Au-
gust, lS2i, a certain lottery net authorized by til,
Laws of the State OF New York aud commonly caed-l
the Grand State LOTTERY, was about 10 be drawn NJ
Ba,niore in the State OF Matyan and that Thomas
eariand, On the LIST September, 1921, did opcn, set
up, exercise and Keep by himself an Office for
sisterins, &c. There nine other counts for in
surins.
David Earle was produced ms witness on the
part OF the prosecution, who testified that some time
~ September, the defendant, hy his clerk insured
Nos 200 and 800 in the Grand National Lottery for
which the witness paid 81 81; and if the tickets
were drawn upon the tenth DAYS drawing of the said
lottery, he was to receive from the defendant 8 l50
Upon has cross examination, he stated he could not
swear 1t was ~ the Grand State Lottery, bur thought
.,, wns ",e Trano h2,'ai Lottery and mat the
also sworn, and alike doubtful
| Phrni.r, counsel for the defendant, supported by
free, commended that under the proof before the
court no conviction cond be had, rs there was Il
variance between the indictment and proof and
that every count IN the intc,ncnt There bvins ten
IN number, had reference 10 the insurance heinz in
the Uriind State Lottery when the witness swore il
was IN the Grand National Lottery and further
that no one count in the Indictment ser rur,l, any a.
steement oil Insurance. with sufficient ceriaintv, ex-
cept one count nni in that count il was alleged that
witness paid 5 J 90 premium, when by the proof il
oppeare to be 81 g. "
Inc ctise was conducted with much ability and
ingenuity ON both sides. The iiccor,le. after The in
ncohent iid been contested throughout, count h,
count, finally instructed the jury fad verdict OF
acquit'a on the ground OF unccrtniv and ci,ej The
nas' uecls'on under our statute against obtaining
ney or goods by false pre,cnces Ii was not GOOD in
Il" Indictment 10 say the words of the a that the
defendant had By false fraudulent d. etunces OBJ
tanned, &c. The pm trnLu transactions must he de-
ta'ied otherwise the defendant might he indicted
anu convicted dozen times for the same offence for
~. .,'u court cou,' do Tor they must have record
e''oe"ce that II was tee same offence. And the wit
nesscs IN the Case before the court being uncertain
ere"n ~hdt lottery ecacty in which the alleee,l
ass"rdncc was made Il never would do To sustain a
conviction The jury, therefore pronounced n YER
u'c OF not gttHJ-. the prisoner vas leaving court
nc nccoraar gave INN pointed ationon o' the
dangerous nature of his act, and that he had i,,,cv
escaped fine Of $1,000, aud perhnps long impr,son
mem, by a mere technical and unlocked for ol,ec-
ton. ~
THE PEOPLE rs. MICHAEL rURpY
Indictment for cruelty to animals
furiiy was one OF number, who were in the
practice last summer of attempting To defraud the
community III the sale of Mich Cows by giving them
an artificial appearance Of value in the following cru
CT manner They bound cords fast round the
tongues of the calves which would produce swel.;nr
and render them unable TO suck.
The cows bags would of course become excessive.
y and painfully dstended and their calves being al
owed to run 10y their side, the conclusion of the buy
er would be, that the COWS were most excellent ami;
mails, inasmuch they could supply their calves and
SIN have great rcdnndance OF milk The trick
however, was alter while discovered, and sevrr;
VINO iractscd II Indicted and punished The fact
was clearly proved against him. and Puty did moi
aSsrava!e justice by attempting Il defence As the
ohencc is novel; he will probably escape with pref