Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-05-03
From the Alexandria Herald, April -.
THE LOTTERY PRIZE CAUSE.

Clarke VS.. TIE Corporation Of Washington.
In the National lntegencer of Thursday, a state
meat made of this case with the decision of the court
upon it, in calculated il is believed, create err
impressions of the real of the case The
reader left under the impression that this cause du-
ring the present term of the court Mad undergone full
and regular trial, and that Mr. Clarke had lost his
in the very place which he had himself selected
for the trial Of it.
Ii is true that Mr.. Clarke removed his cause from the
county of Washington to the county of Alexandria.
But it proper to state that this ofneces
sy on his part. He was obliged to institute his suit
the county of Washington where the members of the
corporation resided but it would have been very in
discreet to have tried the in the very heart of
the society who were parties to IT, The cause was re-
moved TO Alexandria, not for the purpose of gaining
any advantage CT the corporation, but obtain fair
and impartial trial. among persons totally unconcerned
IN the issue of the suit and entirely unacquainted with
the circumstances of the case.
As to the facts of the detailed statement can
not be here made but 1t be safely averred that this
lottery made for the purpose of raising money for
the corporation of Washington:-that the corporation
appointed managers to form the sheme-to issue tick
ets-to sell the lottery and do every thing which
might be necessary to give effect to it, These mana
IN conjunction; ii admitted, with Gillespie form
ed the scheme OF the lottery Tn issued the tickets
IN their own names managers, and sold out the lotc
ry TO Gillespie for the of 100000 which was paid
and applied to the of the corporation. GILLESPIE
was to have all the profit he could make from the lotte-
ry He received from the managers the greater part
OF the tcket-the residue remaining unsigned by the
president of the board of managers but ready to he
signed and delivered out as he might be able 10 secure
the payment. The sale TO Gillespie was matter of
public notOriety in Washington, but whether elsewhere
the case does not state. Mr. Clarke resided at Rich
fnond, IN Virginia, 200 miles from WASHINGTON
aud from Richmond for the ticket which drew the
prize. The drawing of the lottery was conducted un
der the direction of the managers and regular books
containing each days statement of the drawing were
kept by the managers and called by them .sThe
Managers a i'm he ~
the Grand National Lottery of the CITY of w angton
The scheme of the lottery well the drawings were
announced in different newspapers the of the
managers; and in that of tie National Inteigenccr
Gillespie stied himself the agent of the managers
1T is proper to state that Mr. Seaton one of the editors
OF this paper, was at that time a member of the
board of Aldermen of Washington The ticket in cues
ton signed by the president of the board mana
gers for the very purpose of being sent to Mr. Clarke
1t passed through the hands of Gespies clerk and
the money for the ticket received by the clerk and
applied to GIlespie's
The case was fully argued al the last term of tbis
court and the counsel for the corporation submitted to
the court several questions of law and asked inruc
tons to the Jury upon these questions The court gave
several opinions, and instructions and among Others,
decided and Instructed the Jury, CHAT it, from the evil
Deuce, they should find that Gillespie purchased he
SAID lottery OF the SAID managers, stated by the wit
ness and sold the said lottery ticket the plaintiff and
received the price of that and all the other tickets sold
an the SAID lottery to his and benefit, that the
corporation Of Washington lie bic upon the evil
dence aforesaid for the payment of tie prize money
claimed by the PLAINTIFF
The Jury did not yield TO the instruction of tie court
but returned verdict for the p!antif--wici tie court
set aside, and awarded new trial.
The cause came on again at the present term-anI
The anxiety of the counsel both sides 10 place II in
situation for final decision By the supreme court al rs
early period possible, induced au arrangement by
winch 1T vas agreed that verdict should be taken for
she amount claimed, to be subject to the opinion of the
court upon the evidence stated. When this arrange
nent vas made il was well understood thai the court
would decide against the plaintiff and such was the de-
c'',o1-and pronounced, once, without argument
i5 tine trial which stated 10 have taken place al
nus term The question now be considered TO be
arr before the supreme court and will be for thai
court TO say whether the corporation of Washington are
liable for the payment ofthat pIize.