Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1894-05-25
AN IMPORTANT DECISION IN A LOT
DRAWING CASE.

AFFECTING BOOM COMPANIES WHO ARE
SUED AND STOCKHOLDERS WHO SUE.
In the early part of the present term OF
the Circuit Court, in the case OF the clifton
Forge Company VS.. Hamilton. which was
a suit brought on the law side OF the court
to compel the payment by the defendanI Oh
a note executed for stock subscription,
the plea that the plaintiff was lottery
company was interposed by the defendant.
The court instructed the jury in that case
that if they should believe from the evil
dence that the lots drawn by the company
at it's lot drawing for the stockholders were
of materially unequal value, and that SAID
lots were drawn by chance, said lot draw
ing constituted a lottery, anu they must
find for the defendant on the ground that
lotteries are prohibited by the statute law
of the State. The jury so found; and this
practically settled the question of the right
of company conducting such a lot draw
ing to recover subscriptions to the stock
where lots went with the stock.
A new phase of the lottery question was
decided last week in the two cases OF Shep-
herd VS.. the Staunton Development Com
pany. and Fallin's executor VS.. the same.
In those cases the plaintiffs brought suit
to recover the money paid by them on ac-
count of stock subscriptions to the defend
ant company, alleging irtheir declarations
that the promoters and organizers of said
company were engaged in conducting lot
terv under the name of the Staunton De-
velopment Company. The defendants de-
INJURED to these declarations and after az
gument by counsel the court sustained
the demurrers. thus dislnissing the suits
from the docket. The ground on which
the demurrers were sustained was based
on the well known law maxim, that where
two parties are equally guilty OF wrong do
ing, the condition of the party defending
is the better one; in other words, that
where there is equal guilt in wrong doing
between plaintiff and defendant, the court
will do nothing to aid the party suing but
will leave both parties in the condition in
which they have placed themselves. Under
the statute imposing fines and imprison-
liltUU upOIl pdI UlCD COuOuCUlhS, iOoUOAiN O 40
the State of Virginia, the court held that
the offence committed both by the seller OF
the lottery ticket and by the purchaser OF
the lottery ticket was of the same charac
ter and degree; and that inasmuch as the
ground on which the plaintiffs sought to
recover was that the defend ants had con-
Quoted a lottery, Jas alleged in their declara-
tions, on the plaintiffs own showing they
had no case, being under the statute in
equal guilt with the defendants.
This decision means practically that
parties who paid money into companies
that had lot drawings in connection with
their stock, where the lots we're OF unequal
value, cannot come into court and recover
what they have paid in, on the ground that
such companies were lotteries. The prac-
tical result of the decisions in the Hamil-
ton case and in the two last named cases is
to put an end to litigation arising out OF
these lot drawings, in as much as such
companies as are above described cannot
collect unpaid stock subscriptions, and
subscribers to the stock OF such companies
cannot recover from the companies and
promoters the money that they have paid
in for stock.
In the case of the Clifton Forge Compa-
ny VS.. Hamilton, Maj. 7. G. Elder repre-
scented the plaintiff and MI. Charles Curry
the defendant. In the Staunton Develop
ment Company cases, the demurrers were
argued by Messrs. Geo. M. Cochran, Z. c,
Elder and A. G. Gordon for the defendants
and by Messrs. &. G. Shepherd and Charles
Curry for the plaintiffs.