Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-04-19

JUDGE WrTHEY ON LOTTERIES.
A De0is,an Givsn In the United States
Circuit Court, which throws Some
Light on the wheel Of Fortune"

The following decision was given a day
orTwO ago In the United States Circuit
Court here, by Judge Whitney, 10 reference
To lottery business i'm Tennessee;
Z. s. Circuit Court, Western District of
Tenuessee-Lauham VS.. Pattsrson-Ds-
cisiOn on demurrer TO plea, by Whitney,
Judge-The declaration is on q due bin
given by defendant to plaintiff
H & J.. Randolph, for plaintiff; Nc
Fsrland. for defendant.
The plea sets up In bar of plaintiffs &C
ton that the due bill was given for the
payment Of the proceeds of certain lot
terry tickets sold by defendant for plaintiff
IN the State of Tennessee, which sale was
by the laws of Tennessee prohibited, and
made a misdemesnOr, punishable by fine
and Imprisonment, wherefore the con-
tract was unlawful and void. To this
plea plaintiff interpOses a demurrer, by
which be says the said ples is no defense
in law TO the pi8Intitt 3 cause of action.
The law Of Tennessee provides that "if
any person V6nt, or attempb to Vend 9 Q
any lottery ticket in this State in any
scheme to be drawn in this or any other
State or country, he is guilty of a INSIDE
me8nOr, and, on conviction, shall be lined
$500 and imprisoned one month in the
county Jail" Code of Tennessee, section
1890 The effect Of this statute
rs 10 prohibit the sale of lottery
tickets in Tennessee, whether to be
drawn in the State or in any other
place. The tickets in question were
issued and TO be drawn in Missouri, and
were sold in Memphis, Tennessee, by de-
PENDANT as sgsnt OF plaintiff The defend
ant did not pay over the proceeds to his
principal, but gave the due bill in ques-
lion by which he contracted to pay.
IL is well settled that "nO action can be
maintained on a contract, the cOnsiders-
ton of which is either wicked in itself or
prohibited by law III Wheaton, Arm
strong vs.. Toler, 304
The plaintiff had arranged q lottery
scheme, and placed tickets in defendants
hands, to be sold in Tennessee, on an
agreement by defendant, express or inn
piled, 20 sell The tickets at Memphis and
account for the proceeds arising from such
sale. Was not that an agreement by de-
fendant TO do an act for plaintiff which
the law Of Tennessee prohibits? And was
not the consideration Of defendants
promise to pay over the proceeds based
upon that which the law prOhibits2
Plaintiffs title to the money would I'm
such cases be clearly founded on an an
lawful cOntraCJ-a contract by which de-
PENDANT was TO sell lottery tickets ia Ton
nessee u pay over the proceeds. You
separate the agreement to BAY owe
the proceeds from the unlawful sale.
II is an Indebtedness on q contract for
hidden by law, and the fact that the prom.
Use 20 pay was changed into the form Of a
written due bill cannot change the fact
that the consideration was illegal.
The due-bil WIS given for the very
money clsimed to be due from the sale OF
The suit is between the original
parties to the Illegal transaction, and the
promise, evidenced by the due-bin, has its
consideration in an arrangement forbid
den by law. All such promises are void.
This is not g case of subsequent or coll
lateral contract, the direct or immediate
consideration OF which is not illegal. but 4
is R contract based squsrely on the niegsl /
tr8nsactiOn-grOWs Immediately ont of,
and is connected with, the illegal sale.
The rule goes so TAR that, if the contract
be in part only connected with the illegal
consideration, and growing Immediately
out oft, though it bs a new contract, iC is
tainted, and nno be enforced.
The law leaves the parties es 80 finds
them, and will not aid q pdgtjceps crjn1jnfs
10 enforce his exact Ons, which originate
IN violations of law. The demurrer is
ovsrruled.