The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1825-07-14

iIim ~ l52|. IL rfiate " .has0H u 70, y IL
ten BY him IN ls25. Which course Of arg.
meut will Alr. Leigh defen1-that Of 1924, OF
that OF 1928
~ The name Of Henry Ri,cs, Esq. wa
accidentally omitted, either b. the Secreta-
~ of the Meeting 81 ourselves. as one ol
the delegates appointed to the Stauoton
Convention from Nelson county I'VE are
sure that 10 nhomsnever the OMISSION IS
chargabls, II Wa undersigned. As no usldi-
aus motive could have prompted either the
Secretary Or the Editors to have omitted
the name of Mr.. Rivcs, we must decline
inserting the iu1ammarory communication
nf"A Citizen Of .htison," which eau Ger
taInly answer no good purpose,
s"sass"-
LOTTERY LAW.
We alluded IN The early part of last month
TO the pre,entm.nt which bad been made by
The Grand Jury Of This Corporation, under the
law of the lasl session OF Assembly, to restrain
the selling within this commonwealth of TO-
reign lottery tickets aud explained the man
ncr in which that law had been cvaded b,
The brokers. We also took occasion to ex.
press our conviction that this evasion could
not be construed into a violation Of pcnol
statute. We & further, aud say, that, even
viewed As a reBafl iai statute, rs Judge Bruc ;.
enbrough quotes The Rev. Code to prove lint
it must BE-, the guaranteeing he payment o. a
prize is not and cannot be construed to be
the selling Of Eetct. \ writer ia the last
Charlottesville paper commenting upon tie
remark We made in prior number, that the
signature OF the Managers OF the lottery, or
OF Commissioner, Is essential to constitute
u ticket. endearors to prove this to be m un.
jd,tfahle a,snmption-and contends that
" d,ty eridence II n title To a chance in tote.
rY'' IS ip,0 tacio ticket " no matter whit
mode oil designating those chances is adopted
whether numbers, or letters, or hlcrogly.
phcs, or geomrlrieai figures, or repre- senia.
tons of birds, beasts or fishes" sc, so far
only as the bieroglyphics, numbers. figures,
&c. are concerned, we concur with that VIZ
ter. There can be no dispute about the cor.
rectnes5 Of his statement But is nothing
else necessary Any paper which bears up.
on It's face the evidence Ola debt due from A
to g IS an obligation IN form but is nothing
else necessary to make ii valid in law Mus
not the debtor sign it And if third party
tor instance, should guarantee by a separate
paper, the payment OF this Obligation, woula
that release \ , Would not the original in
,trnment hold against the giver, and would moi
the guarantee be only good against c, who
made it Ibis is exactly the case with the
lottery guarantees, a IS the manager Of a lot.
terry in Baltimore, and is authorized by thai
state to issue tiekets---b III Virginia become
the holder OF parcel Of these tickets-~and
having fun faith in the ability of the manager
20 pay such l-izes rs may be drawn to their
numbers, he guarantees To c the payment oil
any Que Of them which he holds. Well, il
with one of these guarantees, { should, for
example, dfaw priEc--say OF Sl0,U00-to
whom is the manager, who issued the ticbtt,
bound ; II { presents his guarantee 20 him,
will he pay it No Because, were he to
pay that, the ticket is still held by l., and you'd
be good against him. b, who gaGranteeL--
not \, toio sold the tietet, is bound to {, and
only OF hun could payment be demanded =
! ''b''''' - i''N n.y. - ~" bN"' '''''~9 :"
| (B holding the tleketh had thus gnerantoed,1
the ticket should be loat--Who would pay the
| prize The manager No; for he would moi
he bound 10 pny 1t unless The tlcket could bt
produced. Aa cannottora moment suppose
that IT can be eoatehded that two tickets II
the same sehene can possibly bear 'ae sam'
number. Il not, "hefe man IS indicted to-
Se''''S leNe's' we should suppose 1t would BIT
""'y necessary Tor h'n TO prove max ne ha'
never P"F'od win "eSd 10 i'ash the 'ndict
"e"'. 9"co Is our oPi"'oo' We give ton
/ what II - " crth. We Will Just remark, at the