The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1825-05-02

5,snd tbree or four hundred, aud thought,
w., hv This time. he ousht 10 know now 10
A. and that he wished 10 see no" lhey
managed.
THE LOTTERY PRIZE CASE.
a,s,oiu Clarke vs. The Corporation q
Washington
Tas very important and interesting
NO was tried Yesterday at Alexandria,
:, which county the cause had been re
@rsd at the request of the plaintiff; Mr..
,ri,, Attorney General, an1 Mr.. Swami
w. "" tbe pllintli, Dir. Jones for The defend
ant
,rbe suit was brought to recover OF the
r,rn,ra,ion, "A prize of 100000 dollars,
J.,no in the fifth class Of the National
Iararv as il was called. This was pnp
-, series of lotteries authorized by IA law
oftbp Corporation, approved by the Pre-
.lSnt of the United States, pursuant To a
.nver contained in the charter granted to
;be Cooperation, by Congress for the pur
pose of building Lancasteflan sehoolhou
sesa penitpntiary aud town hall. The SUN
Ia be raised by this class fthe lottery, and
appropriated to the objects OF the lottery,
was 0 900 dollars. TIE managers Of the
ottery sold this entire class las they had
tbe three preceding classes) t. David Gil
lesne. for the specific sum of $4,000, t.
be appropriated to the objects of the lnttr
". The scheme was franedby Gillespie,
adapproyed by the managers aud it Of
Grrd a list of prizes, including the prize in
question, amounting, in the aggregate, to
alfa Million The tickets were signed
by the President ofthe Board of Managers
and the lottery was drawn, uader Their
direction hut the tickets we're all
sold by Gillespie, or his agents, and
for his emulumcnt exehsi, ely. Nei
ilrr the managers nor the Corpora
inn had any interest in the lottery,
after receiving the stipulated sum pad by
Gillespie. for the parchase 81 the entire
e5ss and scheme: and which sum WIS
p,d or secured before the drawing of the
jncry. In the progress of the drawing,
Gillespie advanced the pice et tickets, rs
be pleased and all the resulting proGIs
accrued To bin exclusively. In one of the
numerous advertisements put forth by
him, in the putting style nsasd with
professional lottery ycBders, he styl
ID himself ".i9ent Of The Managers
Such was his style in the advertise
m.ots publi4Ird in the National 10
tisencrr. Whilst in the contemporary
! ADVERTISEMENTS, of the same tenor, in other
respects, published in other nea sp lpers, he
ON tied that ad dilipn TO this signature.
That he was vending the tickets on his
Own account, aud for his own individual
profits and omolument WAS IA matter of
general notoriety.
The O esilon in this case was, whether
the Corporation of Washington were d.
pcy responsible to the holders of prlzr
tickets, purchased of Gillespie, for the pay
mpnt of all priaes drawn in that LOTTERY.
and the court being ofopinion that the cor
poraton was not responsible, but that the
proper recourse WAS against Gillespie, as
the proprietor Of The Lottery and the ven.
der Of the tickets, give i2dsment for the
d,feudAots ON which judgment, 1t is
Understand, Mr.. Clarke, the plaintiff, viii
appeal 10 the Sapreme Court OF the
United States, where the case u III be final
Y disposed of, al the next tenn, or at the
hrm ensuing the next.
For the preceding statement, we are IN
d-bted to lcgal friend who is thoroughly
Acquainted with the tActs and all the pro
tvcdnga Ia the case. .Nat. Int.
We publish to day, from the National
t'elgrncer, a very imperfect and inaccu
rate report of the case of Chastaine Clarke
against the Corporations of Washington, in
lie circuit court Of the Districto CoInmlia
iof The county Of Ala xandria. MIR. Ciarke,h
well known, held the tirisei, which in the
last clsss of the Grand National LOTTERY
e.me ont prize If 100000. Mr., Stiles
FiP' Inc vendor oftie tickets in that scheme
ha''9? absconded, and the prize remaining
co'PalI at the expiration of sixty days
hoh Tie drawing, wben pursuant 10 thr
WF'ns OF ,he contract with fortunate advrn
tre's IN the hittcry, it became due, MIR.
C'afke instituted an action against the cor
g'ahon OF Washington t. recover 1t. At
1'e last seaslnn Of the court, .lEy OF the
s'"'hs OF Alex tnitia, In whoa place the
.e",,e had been transferred, rendered
''alet toT the plaintiff for $4,000, the
', To which he WAS entitled after the de
""uPn of % p"r crnt, with interest from
r !efh when it became due. THIS ver-
IVY upon motion, was set aside. new
wa beng had during the present term, by
,''1rnt OF parties 1t was reinsta;ed. subject
'Nhe opinion of the co1rt, on the facts
H. ~ VIC d9f, b'lip 'iscSiitig t''"" ~
'e JMy, lswas distinctly ia evidence,
.Aer alI', that the entire class Of the iotle
> 70 which this prizn was de;tivn was dis
SEQ Thy the managers To Mr.. Gillespie
:" $4,000. the sum authorized 10 be rais-
ny 1t f; that the 81 heme WIS framed by
~ ' Gillespie, hut sub.nitted to the board
IT., IT, managers for their appreciation: that nri
nv hr. Gllirspie nor his aeents eonid nis
ro'e oi single ticket, wiihott obtaining
s a'e PRESIDENT Of the board that the Pre-.
s s would not sign slusle ticket to. an
'"'Qn' beyond the penalty of his BOND to