(.•AMIJS(;. 4-i9 



plaintiff. It was then agreed that the remaining portion 

 of the property should be transferred to the defendant, 

 which was done accordingly, and on the same day the 

 deed was executed upon which the present action was 

 brought. All this was done, as the defendant stated, 

 with the full knowledge of the plaintiff that the houses 

 were to be disposed of by Lottery ; and, in fact, the 

 price which he was to pay for the same was much exag- 

 gerated by the illegal nature of the contract. The plain- 

 tiff had taken a book containing shares Avhich he sold, and 

 accounted for the proceeds to the defendant, who, at the 

 time of the purchase, had no other means of paying for 

 the propert}', except from any proceeds which he might 

 obtain from the sale of the shares, and that was well 

 known to the plaintiff. The Jury, upon this statement, 

 immediately found a verdict for the defendant {t). 



A question arises whether the Ballot which takes place Ballot in 

 in Land Societies for the choice of allotments constitutes ^^^^ Socie- 

 a Lottery within the meaning of the Lottery Acts, and 

 particularly 12 Geo. 2, c. 28 [u). 



It is provided by the 11th section of this Act {x) that Allotment or 

 nothing contained in it is to affect any interest in lands, Partition by 

 &c., held by any Allotment or partition by lots. But 

 that all who may at any time become " part owners, joint 

 tenants or tenants in common" of any land, &c., may 

 take such interest as they might have done by virtue of 

 any "Lot, scroll, chance or allotment whatsoever," if this 

 Act had never been passed (//). 



"Where there are a great many subscribers to a Land Choice of 

 Society, and Allotments only for a few, it may very fairly Allotments, 

 be said that it shall be decided by Lot whether a par- 

 ticular shareholder. A., shall have the choice of one of 

 these Allotments, or whether he shall remain for the pre- 

 sent in statu quo, that is, without the land, but with the 

 same account in the books of the Society as before the 

 Allotment. 



• The plan of drawing by Ballot for priority of the right The Conser- 

 of choice, as adopted by the Conservative Land Society, g^*":^^ ^^^^^ 

 is not unlawful. This balloting, which does no more than 

 determine and regulate the order and priority in which 

 the members are to be entitled to the right of selecting 



(0 Fisher v. Bridges, before Lord [x) 12 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 11, Ap- 



Campbell, C. J., Queen's Bench, penclix. 



Feb. 1, 1853. («/) See ff Cuinior \. Bradshaic, 5 



(«) See Appendix. Exch, 890. 



