Imágenes de páginas
PDF
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

three other brokers had their pockets picked of their purses, one containing sixty-two guineas, another seven, and the third five. One of the pick-pockets was afterwards apprehended, on whom thirtyfive of the tickets were found, and recovered; the other fifteen he said were carried to Holland by his accomplices.

The preceding anecdotes are in the newspapers of the time, together with the following, which strongly marks the perversion of a weak mind. “A gentlewoman in Holborn, whose husband had presented her with a ticket, put up prayers in the church, the day before drawing, in the following manner: The prayers of the congregation are desired for the success % a person engaged in a new undertaking.’

A FRAUDULENT INsurer.

In January, 1768, an insurer of tickets was summoned before a magistrate, for refusing to pay thirty guineas to an adventurer, upon the coming up of a certain number a blank, for which he had paid a premium of three guineas. The insurer was ordered immediately to pay thirty guineas, which he was obliged to comply with to prevent worse consequences.” In other words, the magistrate was too weak to exert the power he was armed with, by law, against both the insurer and the insured.

Love Tickers.

Mr. Charles Holland, the actor, who died on the 7th of December, 1769, received many letters of passionate admiration from a lady who fell in love with him from his appearance on the stage; and she accompanied one of her declarations of attachment by four lottery tickets as a present.f

GooD AND Ill LUck.

In the lottery of 1770, the holder of the ticket entitled to the capital prize or 20,000l. was captain Towry of Isleworth. A very remarkable circumstance put it in his possession: Mr. Barnes, a grocer in Cheapside, purchased four following numbers, one of which this was; but thinking the chance not so great in so

• Universal Magazine. + Memoir of Holland in Universal Magazine.

many following ones, he carried this very ticket back to the office, and changed it for another.

A Little Go. o

October 14, 1770, a case was determined at the general quarter session of the peace for the county of Wilts, held at Marlborough. A quack doctor had been convicted before Thomas Johnson, esq. of Bradford, in the penalty of 200l. for disposing of plate, &c. by means of a device or lottery; and by a second information convicted of the same offence before Joseph Mortimer, esq. of Trowbridge. To both these convictions he appealed to the justices at the general quarter session of the peace, when, after a trial of near ten hours, the bench unanimously confirmed the conviction on both informations, by which the appellant was subjected to the penalties of 200l. on each, and costs.”

Insurance CAUSE.

On the 1st of March, 1773, a cause of great public concern came on to be tried before lord Mansfield, at Guildhall, wherein the lord mayor was plaintiff, and Messrs. Barnes and Golightly were defendants, in order to determine the legality of insuring lottery tickets; but on account of an error in the declaration the plaintiff was nonsuited.

On the 17th of the same month, “Mr. Sheriff Lewes presented a petition from the city of London, against the frequent toleration of lotteries in the time of peace; but the petition was ordered to lie upon the table.—No government can long subsist, that is reduced to the necessity of supporting itself by fraudulent gaming.”t

TRIcks of AN INSURER.

June 26, 1775, a cause came on in the court of common pleas, Guildhall, between a gentleman, plaintiff, and a lottery-office keeper of this city, defendant; the cause of this action was as follows: the gentleman, passing by the lottery-office, observed a woman and boy crying, on which he asked the reason of their tears; they informed him, that they had insured a number in the lottery on

* Gentlemans Magazino, t Ibid.

the over night, and, upon inquiry at another office, found it to have been drawn five days before, and therefore wanted their money returned; the gentleman, taking their part, was assaulted and beat * by the office-keeper, for which the jury gave a verdict in favour of the gentleman with five pounds damages.”

Paoceedings RESPECTING A BLUE-coat Boy.

In 1775, some of the boys of Christ's Hospital, appointed to draw numbers and chances from the wheel, were tampered with, for the purpose of inducing them to commit a fraud. These attempts were successful in one instance, and led to certain regulations, which will presently be stated. On the 1st of June, a man was carried before the lord mayor for attempting to bribe the two blue-coat boys who drew the Museum Lottery at Guildhall to conceal a ticket, and to bring it to him, promising that he would next day return it to them. His intention was to insure it in all the offices, with a view to defraud the office-keepers. The boys were honest, gave notice of the intended fraud, and pointed out the delinquent, who, however, was discharged, as there existed no law to punish the offence. On the 5th of December, one of the blue-coat boys who drew the numbers in the State Lottery at Guildhall was examined before sir Charles Asgill, relative to a number that had been drawn out the Friday before, on which an insurance had been made in almost every office in London. The boy confessed, that he was prevailed upon to conceal the ticket No. 21,481, by a man who gave him money for so doing; that the man copied the number; and that the next day he followed the man's instructions, and put his hand into the wheel as usual, with the ticket in it, and then pretended to draw it out. The instigator of the offence had actually received 400l. of the insurance-office keepers; had all of them paid him, the whole sum would have amounted to 3000l. but some of them suspected a fraud had been committed, and caused the inquiry, which obtained the boy's confession. On the following day, the person who insured the ticket was examined. He was clerk to a hop-factor in Goodman's-fields,

• Universal Magazine.

but not being the person who seduced the boy to secrete the ticket, and no evidence appearing to so his connection with the person who did, the prisoner was discharged, though it was ascertained that he had insured the number already mentioned ninety-one times in one day.” In consequence of the circumstances discovered by this examination, the lords of the treasury inquired further, and deliberated on the means of preventing similar practices; the result of their conferences was the following “Orders,” which are extracted from the original minutes of the proceedings, and are now for the first time published. COPY, No. I. ORDER of December 12, 1775. A Discovery having been made, that William TRAMPLET, one of the boys employed in drawing the lottery, had, at the instigation of one CHARLEs Lowndes, (since zosecnded,) at different times, in former rolls taken out of the number wheel Three numbered tickets, which were at Three several times returned by him into the said wheel, and drawn without his parting with them, so as to give them the appearance of being fairly drawn, to answer the purpose of defrauding by insurance : It Is THERefore ordered, for preventing the like wicked practices in future, that every boy before he is suffered to put his hand into either wheel, be brought by the proclaimer to the managers on duty, for them to-see that the bosoms and sleeves of his coat be closely buttoned, his pockets sewed up, and his hands examined; and that during the time of his being on duty, he shall keep his left hand in his girdle behind him, and his right hand open, with his fingers ertended; and the proclaimer is not to suffer him at any time to leave the wheel without being first examined by the manager nearest him. The observance of the foregoing order is recommended by the managers on this roll to those on the succeeding rolls, till the matter shall be more fully discussed at a general meeting.

COPY, No. II. ORDER at GENERAL MEETING.

A PLAN of RULES AND ReGULATIons to be observed, in order to prevent the boys committing frauds, &c., in

* Gentleman's Magazine.

[ocr errors]

the drawing of the lottery, agreeable to directions received by Mr. Johnson, on Tuesday the 16th of January, 1776, from the Lords of The TREASURY.

That ten managers be always on the roll at Guildhall, two of whom are to be conveniently placed opposite the two boys at the wheels, in order to observe that they strictly conform themselves to the rules and orders directed by the committee, at Guildhall, on Tuesday, December 12, 1775.

That it be requested of the TREASURER of Christ's Hospital not to make known who are the twelve boys nominated for drawing the lottery till the morning the drawing begins ; which said boys are all to attend every day, and the two who are to go on duty at the wheels are to be taken promiscuously from amongst the whole number by either of the secretaries, without observing any regular course or order; so that no boy shall know when it will be his turn to go to either wheel.

This Method, though attended with considerable additional expense, by the extra attendance of two managers and six boys, will, it is presumed, effectually prevent any attempt being made to corrupt or bribe any of the boys to commit the fraud practised in the last lottery.

It is imagined, that to future inquirers concerning lotteries, with a view to its history, the publication of the preceding documents may be acceptable. So long a time has elapsed since the fraud they relate to was perpetrated, that any motive which existed for keeping them private has ceased. The blue-coat boy who secretly abstracted the tickets from the wheel, and afterwards appeared to draw them fairly and openly, will be regarded as having been pitiably exposed to seductions, which might have been prevented if these regulations had been adopted on the complaint of the lad who was tampered with in June. Perhaps it was prudent, though not “quite correct,” to conceal that three tickets had been improperly taken from the wheel: until now, it has not been publicly made known that there was more than one ; and though, if the

oint had been tried, that one might have {. sufficient to have vitiated the legality of the drawing of the lottery of 1775 altogether, it was not enough, in a popular view, to raise a hue-and-cry among the

unfortunate holders against the disturbance of their chances. The concealment of three might have congregated the unsuccessful adventurers of the three kingdoms into an uproar, “one and indivisible,” which, with the law on their side, would have exceedingly puzzled the then lords of the treasury to subdue, without ordering the lottery to have been drawn over again, and raising a fresh clamour among the holders of tickets that had been declared prizes.

Lottery Suicide.

On the 10th of January, 1777, “a young man, clerk to a merchant in the city, was found in the river below bridge . drowned: he had been dabbling in the lottery with his master's money, and chose this way of settling his accounts.”

A BLANK MADE A PRIZE.

In January, 1777, Joseph Arones and Samuel Noah, two jews, were examined atGuildhall before the lord mayor, charged with counterfeiting the lottery ticket No. 25,590, a prize of 2000l., with intent to defraud Mr. Keyser, an office-keeper, knowing the same to have been false and counterfeit. Mr. Keyser had examined the ticket carefully, and had taken it into the Stock-exchange to sell, when Mr. Shewell came into the same box, and desired to look at the ticket, having, as he recollected, purchased one of the same number a day or two before. This fortunate discovery laid open the fraud, and the two jews were committed to take their trial for their ingenuity. It was so artfully altered from 23,590, that not the least erasure could be discerned. Arones was but just come to England, and Noah was thought to be a man of property.

In February following, Arones and Noah were tried at the Old Bailey for the forgery and fraud. Their defence was, that the prisoner Arones found it, and persons were brought to swear it; on which they were acquitted. The figure altered was so totally obliterated by a certain liquid, that not the least trace of it could be perceived.

At the same sessions, Daniel Denny was tried for forging, counterfeiting, and altering a lottery ticket, with intent to defraud; and, being found guilty, was condemned.t

* Gentleman's Magazine, t Ibid.

Insuring.

In July, 1778, came on to be tried at Guildhali, before lord Mansfield, a cause, wherein a merchant was plaintiff and a lottery-office keeper defendant. The action was brought for suffering a young man, the plaintiff's apprentice, to insure with the defendant during the drawing of the last lottery, contrary to the statute; whereby the youth lost a considerable sum, the property of the merchant. The jury without going out of court gave a verdict for the plaintiff, thereby subjecting the defendant to pay 500l. penalty, and to three months' imprisonment." During the same year, parliament having discussed the evil of insuring, and the mischievous subdivision of the shares of tickets, passed an act “for the regulation of Lottery offices,” in which the principal clauses were as follows— “To oblige every lottery-office keeper to take out a lieence, at the expense of 50l., and give security not to infringe any part of the act. “That no person shall dispose of any part of a ticket in any smaller share or proportion than a sixteenth, on 50l. penalty. “That any person selling goods, wares, or other merchandise, or who shall offer any sum or sums of money, upon any chance or event whatsoever, relating to the drawing of any ticket, shall be liable to a penalty of 20l. « }. enable the commissioners of his majesty's treasury to establish an office;— all shares to be stamped at that office;— the original tickets from which such shares are to be taken, to be kept at that office till a certain time after drawing;-books of entry to be regularly kept ;-persons carrying shares to be stamped to pay a small sum specified in the act;-penalties for persons selling shares not stamped; and a clause for punishing persons who shall forge the stamp of any ticket.” - In 1779, the drawing of the lottery and the conduct of lottery-office keepers was further regulated by act of parliament.f

[blocks in formation]

proposals were issued by the cumming, and greedily accepted by the credulous.

I. - November 7, 1781. MoDE of INSURANCE,

Which continues the whole time of drawing the lottery, at CARR1ck's StATE Lottery OFFICE, King's Arms, 72, Threadneedle-street. At one guinea each NUMBERs are taken, to return three twenty pound prizes, value sixty pounds, for every given number that shall be drawn any prize whatever above twenty pounds during the whole drawing.

*...* Numbers at half a guinea to receive half the above.

II.

J. Cook respectfully solicits the public will favour the following incomparably advantageous plan with attention, by which upwards of thirty-two thousand chances for obtaining a prize (out of the forty-eight thousand tickets) are given in one policy. Policies of Five GUINEAs with three numbers, with the first number will gain 20000 if a prize of £20000 10000. . . . . . . . . f'10000 5000 . . . . . . . .# 5000 with the second number will gain 6000 guineas if 20000 3000 . . . . . . 10000 1500 . . . . . . 5000 with the third number will gain 3000 guineas if 20000 1500 . . . . 10000 1200 . . . . . . 5000

In the lottery act of 1782 there was a clause designed to prevent the insurance of tickets by any method. The lotteryoffice keepers persisted in their devices, and the magistrates enforced the law.

About the beginning of January 1785 several lottery-office keepers were convicted, before the lord mayor and aldermen, in penalties of fifty pounds each for insuring numbers contrary to law; and in Trinity term the following cause was tried at Westminster, before lord Loughborough.

A lottery-office keeper near §: cross was plaintiff, and the sheriff of Middlesex defendant. The action was to recover one thousand five hundred and sixty-six pounds, levied by the sheriff, about a year past, on the plaintiff's goods, by virtue of three writs of fieri facias,

« AnteriorContinuar »