The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-19

COMMON PLEAs-sPBCIAL TERM.
-IxGHiHAA 1.-The defendant IL sued for penalty
der the statute against lotteries me andsvit upon
which he Is hsh to bail ssts out upoa information and
property to ). isd or distriSassd ~ ios or chance
,mons sDy !sr,Sn Or geons Who should PAY one dollar
that The property was alleged BY the dsfsndant 70 be
worth $500, COO that application made ct The
q ne e dan Ss e. that the
titled him to share In the g in connection
With the s1hihtio. Of panorama OF picture; thst the
place. and informed It might be in month three
months - soon - the tchets were sold that the app
cant can ss'.iSsd 81 u: s.traHs: Of the Once hsS
stated that TIE holder need not be present ct the
dis,ibuton Of The sits that whom the gifts award
what shey would receive BY such hsndbii such sub.
scliber was alo to receive Journal called the Neo
ant W.. bella 70 san in Any thousand dollars
The defendant now moves TO be discharged from
arrest.
dent, or about to leave the State.
90 Because some Of the facts are stated to be ON In
sd pecsuss in these adavits and others read by the
esn naant + spp r. that there has been no intended
before the code, where the action fer penalty
iDpofsd BY statute, the defendant liable TO
from state The rule xSicS eUnrss susS
peof do mot Apply to such actions snoe the adoption
Of the Code may ws be doubted whether such proof
required In any case except under the subdivision In
which such proof Is specially required In all other
think be may BE- held to bail without In regard
Wit to hold bail should in all cases be positive Where
debt 10 the subject matter of the controversy and the
defendant DO hea to BAIL then it proper tina. the
plaintiff should be required to positively indebt-
ednets but where the cause Of action like this is to be
made up from circumstances, many OF which only
10 say Il at the affidavit must be positive as to the
facts Even, however, II there was doubt on this
point, the shdavits now submitted place the defend
ants connection with this project beyond dispute, and
leave the motion to be decided on the merits.
might, in reference to this part Of the motion, say
that the adavits on the part Of the plaintiff make out
aima taeie against the defendant and when tn
s the case H. Is proper 70 try the question upon
scavits But as the amount Of bail required Is large,
have examined the adavits both sides for the pur
pose Of ascerainiDg there any ground which the
order should be vacated The extent OF liability Of
by lot chance lately examined and passed upon
by Judge Woodruff in this court, in the Of the
Governors Of the Aims House vs. Perham, May 1854.
In that opinion fully concur, and reference TO IL will
render Unnecessary discussion here OF the points
there decided. will only be necessary for me- there
anything different from that Of Perham's If there Is
not the order OF arrest should not be vacated The only
difference which Is understand, exists between this
trbuiion allowed to be BY lot while in this the
defendant swenrs such distribution intended but
equal portions and to he disposed of and the pro-
eeeds TO be distributed equally between them If This
lottery Among the adavs in addition to that Of the
detenosnt, those Of few Of the subscribers and
some q the employees Of II. Defendant stating that they
Understood the enterprise OF the
conducted, srd that there to be drawing, rafting
or lottery in Opposition to this there is the handbi
businert the authenticity Of which Ia not denied by
The defendant In this handful tho tickets Hxed
at 900 Gee, and the gifts At 800 ooo-some Of the
rDs, amounting IN The largest in value to $50 600
The gifts DO distributed among the purchasers Of
.Nnt. {,~a -
are to have admission to exhibition and year.
subscription 10 paper called the New World Subscr-
theush .S.ent At the time o ths asshn,i"n ns hs
gifts What they will receive In the paper published oy
the def nfant bsndb Of the plan is inserted. vary
ing but slightly from the one annexed 10 the adavits
to bold to bail. In this also. 10 promised gift for
every ticket and the gifts proposed for dstri
button. IL the paper published in June, the hand
bill IL not altered In that OF july IL IL altered so that
instead OF sayirg that the holders Of tickets will be
notfsd Of what giits they to receive 1t states that
tory disposition OF the gs In these ate ra,ious how
ever II must be apparent that there Is real change
gifts a. propofed but they are to be distributed and
the plan vas published at the time Of the Of
srest the proposal was TO place the gts In the charge
Of a cnDitee appointed by the ticket holders TO be
dstibu ed among them. No 10 looking the list
OF eft, can Tor mon INT suppose that there be
eqra dsuuti,n OF the gifts where on is Of the value
Of 5000 another Of $4,000, and others varying in
their estimated yauo from thousands of dollars to
ore dolar or less It can only be looked upon ne
wfopty the price for tickets shares, and who
can in return receive each one prize gift Of dfer
EFT TIE s viii may s o. the irl
that lie IL rot within the provisions OF the statute
against lotteries but, upon the evidence before me,
can difference to warrant me in arriving It any
other conclusion than adopted in the Of Per-
BAN. The very iIining alterations which have been
made IN he plan amount to nothing more than an
seuIt 10 conceal under the term distribution what
Ptrbsm openly proposed TO distribute by lot and
shsr,c. TIE law is . salu'ery ono-and Of thai !
think there esn tie doubfi ought not to DO easily
rendered nuga',ry and IL this scheme be
fully sustained leesl there be difficulty here
after In csrypg schemes for lotteries of ali kinds
wLe'itr the prizes consist Of goods money The
tcp IA ony & discharge from arrest There Is evil
atnce 10 sow that tn defendant Ia unable Is give tie
amount Of tail required On this motion do not intend
TO pass uptn the reduction Of HAT amount but only
upon the proIrety of yaestog tho order Of srrsst.
The motion Is denied without prejudice TO
ton 10 reduce the amount Of ball If 30 advised.