New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-07-19
LAW NT'ELLIGENCE
coURr OF COMMON PLEAs-sPEcIAL TsxN-Bsts.s Juiss


COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-srseiAL tssN-D''''s 'vis'
THE HART GIFrs-DEcIsIos.
The Governors Of the Aims House sgt J. Wcodnsn Hart
The defendant il sued for penalty under the statute
against lotteries. The affidavit upon which he Is held to
bail out upon information and belief that defendant SET
M and proposed certain property to be rallied Tor or DIS
trbued BIZ lot chance among any and person VINO
should pay one dollar for each of 900 chances tor OBJ
tanning such goodsthat the property wa" alleged ny oe
fepdant 10 be worth $500 0O0hat an application was
made at the Office of the defendant for ticket and that
the applicant purchased Of the tickets for ell which
Titled him 10 one share in the 300 900 gifts, IN connec
ton with the exhibition OF panorama or PIcgreIthat APP
pican then asked when the drawing woud take place ana
was informed it might be month or IN three weeks as
son "a the tickets were sodthat applicant obtained at
the entrance of the office handb 70 the same elect
Lat In such handful il was stated that the holder need
NOT he present at the distribution Of the gfs-thst when
he ms were awarded holders OF the tickets should be
,,omptjy notined as to what they would receive.
Nv such hsndbl each subscriber was also 10 receive
Journal called Tie Whole World for ooe year. Upon
Ise davits the defendant held to bail 10 $50 900
The defendant moves 10 be discharged from arrest
frat because it ioes not appear that he nonresident or
about to leave the State second because some OF inc
are s,aed 20 be on information and belief third because
IN these adays and others read by the defendant OPP
pears there has been intended violation Of the statute
In to the first ground 1t sufficient to say that
even before the Code where the action tor penalty
mposed by statute the defendant liable to arrest
without any proof Of nonresdence or intended departure
from the Stale The rule which required such proof dd
moi amply TO such actions Since the adoption OF the Code
il NAV well be doubted whether such proof is required IN
any case except under the subdivision in which such proof
s specially required In Gil other cases ninA ne may %
held 10 bail without it.
In regard 20 the second ground Is not necessary thai
an fsvit 10 hold 10 ball should il all be positive
Were debt il the subject matter Of controversy and the
desdant can be held 10 bail there it IL proper that thu
naut should required to swear positively to indebt
Jress hint where the cause of action, like this 10 to b
made no from circumstances many Of which can only b
,a,ed upon information and belief would be idle to
tia. the affidavit must be positive as TO all the facts
zen il there was doubt this point, the adsvs nov
submitted place the defendants communication With hi
project beyond dispute and leave the motion 10 be d.
| cided upon the merits.
mgh. ia reference to this part of the motca, say tn,
the adavits on tie part Of the plaintiff make sut prm
sacia case aganst defendant and when that the csse
not proper to try the question upon ahidAvits But
the amount Of bail required is large, Ihave examined
sdayits on both sides for the purpose Of asoextanng
there Is any ground on which The order should
| vacated.
The extent or liability Of psrtsA setting up goods or q
other things for distributor by lot o. chance ives late