438 



GAMING. 



Attempt to 

 evade the 

 Law. 



Ai't Union.s. 



A Lottery of 

 Houses. 



Where an announcement was made by a dramatic per- 

 former that the holder of a certam Ticket of admission to 

 the Theatre should be entitled to a gold watch of a spe- 

 cified value, and the price of Tickets had been consequently 

 raised, it was held that the holder of the Ticket could not 

 recover the value of the watch, as such a proceeding was 

 in point of fact a Lotlenj (q). 



So, too, the distribution of presents, accordingto a previous 

 announcement after a musical entertainment to persons 

 occupying certain numbered seats, who with the rest of the 

 audience had paid a sum of money for admission generally 

 to the room, the numbers of the fortunate recipients being 

 called out, and the presents handed to them, was held to 

 be a Lottery within 42 Greo. 3, c. 119, s. 2 (r). 



By the Act legalizing Art Unions (s), it is provided 

 that voluntary associations constituted for the distribu- 

 tion of Avorks of art by lot are to be deemed legal, where 

 a royal charter has first been obtained. 



An action was brought to recover a sum of money 

 upon a covenant contained in a deed which the defendant 

 had executed on the 27th of October, 1849, whereby he 

 covenanted to pay the plaintiff the sum of 630/. on the 

 27th of April, 1850. The defendant pleaded that the 

 deed in question was founded upon, and was executed in 

 pursuance of, an unlawful agreement which had pre- 

 viously been entered into between the parties, whereby 

 it was agreed that certain Houses should be conveyed by 

 the plaintiff to the defendant, to the intent and for the 

 purpose that they should be disposed of by the defendant 

 by Lotfcnj. The defendant contended that the agreement 

 was illegal under 10 & 11 Will. 3, c. 17, and the deed 

 founded upon it void. The issue being upon the defen- 

 dant, the defendant himself was put into the box, and 

 stated that a scheme had been adopted at Manchester for 

 disposing of house property by Lottery, and that he had 

 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the 

 purchase of seventeen houses in Sheffield, which, it was 

 understood between them, were to be disposed of in the 

 same manner. The shares were publicly advertised at 

 Sheffield, and the first drawing took place in August, 

 1849, when a portion of the property was disposed of by 

 the defendant, with the concurrence and assistance of the 



('/) Roddi/ V. Stanleij, 5 Ir. Jur. ()■) Morris v. BIackina», 10 Jur., 



10. N. S. 520. 



(.s') 9 & 10 Vict. c. 48, s. 1. 



