New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-07-19
examined and passed upon by Judge Woodruff IN this
Court in the case of the Governor of the Aims House

examined and passed upon by Judge Woodruff IN this
Cont in the case az the Governors of the Aims House
ssa;na, pelham Nav Special Term 1854 In that opinion
Italy concur and reference 10 IT will render nnneeessa-
~ any discussion here OF Che point, mere decided ~
vlsler in the present there is anything different
fop thai Of Perams ease IL there Is not the order Of
de Court ehoult not be vacated
1hn only difference which, az understand exists be-
tween tL erse and that Of Perhams is that in the latter
case the distribution announced TO be by lot while in
ths case the defendant swears that such distribution
was sded. but Tat the property TO be given to
fhe cTbers in eqda portions, aad to be disposed
Of and the proceeds TO be distributed equally between
them II this so, and the fact 10 be established it
would not be a lottery.
Among the adavits in addition to that Of the defendant
those Of few Of the subscribers and of the
ploy Is Of the defendant stating that they understood
the enterprise Of the defendant TO be conducted and that
there was 20 be no drawing, railing or lottery.
In opposition this there is the handful Of the defend
en obtained at the door Of the place of business, the
tbenoiy Of which is not denied by defendant In this
handful the tickes fixed at 100000 and the gifts at
800 000some OF the value Of 25 EACH and others of
different sums, amounting IN the largest in value to
100000 These gifts TO be distributed among the pur
ebaGers OF 81 tickets who in addition 20 one gift for each
ticket TO have admission TO an exhibition and one
years subscription 10 paper called TIE Whole World
Subscribers notified in il that they Will be informed ct
the time Of distribution OF the gts what they viii receive
In the paper published by the defendant hsndbl OF
the plan inserted varying but slightly from the
Dcxed to the odayits TO hold to bail In this also is
promised gift for every ticket, and the same gifts
June the band-bis not altered. In that of July is al
tered that instead of saying that the holders Of tickets
will lie notified Of what gifts they to receive it states
fhe the holders Of tickets may rely upon fair and salts
factory distribution Of the gifts.
In these alterations however it must be apparent that
there Is real choDge Of the PLAN provision is made
for the sale Of the gifts proposed but they are TO be as
trbued and as the plan published at the time OF the
order Of arrest the proposal TO place the gs IN the
charge Of committee, appointed by the ticket holders to
BE- distributed among them.
No one on looking over the list of gifts for
ment suppose that there can be equal distribution of
the gifts where of the value OF $50 000 another Of
e25 eco and thus varying in their estimated value from
Thousands Of dollars 70 dollar less Ii can only be
looked upon mode Of disposition OF the property among
individuals who pay the price for tickets or shares
ana WHO In receive each one prize or gt Of
differ, Mt value from the others.
Ii be- the trial OF the case the defendant will
be able 10 safely jury that he is within the provisions
of the statute against ottenesbu upon the evidence be-
fore difference to warrant me in arriving
any other conclusion tnan adopted in the vi
PeTham. The very rihng alterations which have been
made in the plan 10 nothing than ate npt
20 conceal under the term Distribution Nat Perham
ly proposed to distribute by lot or chancs.
Ii the law sautary one, and of that think there
can be doubt il ought not TO be easily rendered nuga
legal there be difficulty hereafter in carrying out
schemes for lotteries Of all kinds whether the prizes con-
sift Of goods money.
The motion il only 10 discharge from arrest. There Is
evidence show that the defendant is unable TO give
the amount Of bail required. On this motion do not in
tend TO pass upon the reduction OF that amount but only
ups the propriety of vacating the order of arrest
The motion il denied without prejudice TO q motion to
reduce the amount OF bail if SO advised