The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-09-22

that anV one could 90 into that basement at any
Tune since the basement-door had not been closed
iOr years; that If the place had been insured for
more than t was really WORTH that was the business
oil the Insurance Company, not o. the defendants,
Inc frank conduct of Faro ater the fire was
mentioned as a consideration lie teleRrapbed TO
Lasttco, who was then In Boston, telling him OF the
accident. He ansv cred readily and Willingly all
inc calls OF the Officers, went to the examinations
without being sent for, and promptly made his
statements. Also. there not item of evidence
against Lastlco, no at the time, and had been
for some time before, in Boston. He was ARE ted
merely upon suspicion Of having conspired with
Faro TO do this.
Ader an able charge from the Court, the jury
retired.
The Lottery Policy Cases-Indictmen ents
Quashed-OplniOn by Judge Ludlow.
Commonwealth vs. Carpenter. Demurrer to the bill
Of Indictment An examination OF each of the counts of
the Indictment discoses certain atal defects which wilt
n the INST four counis the bill charges the defendants
Win ~ having M erected SCI up and made lottery or that
privately; and In the th count that he concerned
But not alleged either in the language O. the act Of
Assem- ~ or otherwise, that the object OF the lottery
II seems 10 be understood that ali lotteries are illegal
IN Pennsy but this is not the language OF the
lnM, All lQtterlesgor moneys, goods, wares, or msr-
chandlse, ehatte 9, lands enemens hereditaments or
70 be common nuisances s the language OF the act
INC object OF the act was destroy by which
other by chance lot The memDer OF Councils or the
% y y9 o seat a % or ot Ss
BODY which established method OF selection In open
abe Judges OF the supreme Court upon the reorgan
zaon OF that tribunal in 1851 selected their terms Of
ment to the Constitution and the present law in regard
might Bave been framed in the Language of the
one now before us sunder which individuals might
lottery and If convicted might have been sentenced
far as the form OF the ndicmens was 70
Client simply TO declare In an Indictment that
teIy wi hout in the indictment dec arng OBJECT OF
the lottery and II lottery was es abished by which
called which represents nothing c cary such lottery
stances bv way Of Illustration might be named where
lottery might be established which would not be within
might be framed in the very language OF the one now
beor us and upon that Indictment citizen might be
If there should be conviction, under this bill! the
bill when n iact the defendant might have been guilty
suppose however, the defe ndant should be convicted
Of nm ofense clearly within the law and owed by salts
same ofenso how could he plead former coHvictonS
The evidence Is no part o1 the record The Judge
of commission 30 out OF office and this might be the
with the prosecuting officer clerk OF u CONT
could the court be informed Officially Of any fact
which 1t would be essential to establish in any other
way than by an examination OF tue Indictment aud
this ms Tument would ony prove that the defendant
lottery which might or might not have been Ihe same
ana which might or might not have been illegal.
We are aware that the aot provides that any ndict-
men shall be valid although It does not state the
that an indictment shall be valid which does not sta
the object to be secured by the lottery to wit
goods wares merchandise, chattels lands enement
hereditaments, other matters things VIII
III method the object appear the hands of
the Court, In the event of conviction will be ted
when Judgment is 10 be pronounced on a verdict
The two last counts of this Indictment also defec-
tive for II does not appear to person or persons the
lottery icy sod. This Court long ago decided
this point, and not aware the existence any
indictment upon our records wherever this matsrla
fact does not appear and is not stated although by
direction a search has been made for such a form.
We would be very uctant I'm coming the concr-
sons above If did not believe that the liberty
citizen and at the same time the pub ic interests are
best guarded, maintained and secured bv a faithful
execution the law. where the controversy arises
upon that which aDpegIs to be question of form but
which regard vital and Of the very substance or
the
We see nothing in the other points made and argued
in this but the detects heretofore specified affect
every count IN this BILL sustain the demurrer