• THE NATIONAL REGISTER. LAW REPOR TS. COURT OF CHANCERY, Aucusr 2. NISBETT V. SWIFT. This was a case of demurrer of some curiosity. The facts as stated in the argument of Mr. Hirt, for the defendant, were these : Some time since the plaintiff applied to the defendant Henry Edward Swift, a Lottery-office-keeper, fur the purpose of pur chasing of two particular tickets, Nos. 111 and 27, previously to their being issued from the Bank of England. The plaintiff placing a very mysterious faith in those two tickets, paid a gra tuity of five shillings, which he was told by defendant was cus tomary in cases where a person fixed on a favourite number. These five shillings went to a clerk in the Bank, who marked the numbers chosen in a way that they might be koown after the issue, and secured for the persons engaging them. In fine, the plaintiff bespoke, and the defendant agreed to obtain for him the numbers specified. in the sequel, however, he only procured the No. 111, one quarter of which the plaintiff took ; but the N 0.27, one half of which he bad contracted to purchase, never came into his possession. The No. 111 happened to come out a blank, hut the other came out a prize of 20.0001. The plaintiff then brought his action to recover the 10,0001. to which the half-ticket 27 was entitled ; and by a bill in equity asked for a discovery of certain particular facie, without the knowledge of which, in evidence, his action could not be supported. These facts were sought to be discovered in a series of questions put by plaintiff to defendant, as to whether, in such cases, marks were usually put on tickets while depo-ited in the Bank ? whether defendant pronVsed to bespeak and procure the shares of the particular tickets for plaftitiff ?—whether he did not ad mit, in a conversation with others, :het he had agreed so to be speak and procure• them I—whether the frve.shilliegs were not actually paid for the purpose of having this mark affixed ? whe ther in part fulfilment of their contract defendant did not pro cure the ticket No. 111 ? &c. To the answering of these ques tions defendant demurred ; and in support of the demurrer, he (Mr. Hart) referred to the Act of Parliatneut, the 49th of -Geo. 111. which authorised the drawing of the lottery in ques tion. '1 his Act declared, that any person dividing tickets into shares, or issnittg chances in any manner but that specified in the Act, should be subject to particular penalties It directed that every share or agreement. for a share should he stamped in a form specified ; that persons selling shares or chances except on stamped paper should forfeit 501. for every such illegal act ; that all persons taking out a license should, before the drawieg, deposit in the Bank 150 shares, or 30 whole tickets, otherwise the license would be void ; that those shares or tickets so depo sited should not he sold or disposed of previously to their being brought from the Bank : and it further directed, that all persons convicted under this Act of illegal transactions should be deemed rogues and va , rabonds, and given over to the justices of the peace to be punished accordingly. 'Anil were the enactments of this Act ; and he contended, that by answering the Bill of the plain tiff, his client would, by confession, impeach himself with two breaches of it. Sir S. Roradly, for the plaintiff, said, that it was not ex tremely creditable for th.- deft:admit, after a breach of contract, to plead illegality against the consecuences of its non-fulfil:net' He contended, however, that an erionenus construction had been put upon the Act. It was a Penal Act, and ought to be. construed most strictly. The declarations of the Act did not bear against a previous agreement on the part of the defendant to do all in his power short of selling tcl:cts , it was against the actual sale of the tickets that the provisions of the Act were iiirreted. It could not be against agreements of this kind that the Legislature levtiled the act, because, if the defendaet had agreed to obtain an indefinite number of tickets, surely such an agreement would not be illegal. LORD CHANCELLOR.—It would he necessary for me to read the whole Act, to understand the meaning and spirit of these . particular clauses. Is it not a question whether this agree /tient be not an agreement in the words of the Act " for selling chances." _ _ _ Sir S. Romilly still contended, that the construction put upon the Act was erroneous; but independent of its construction the demurrer must fall to the ground, because it covered too much. They themselves had overruled their demurrer by their answer. Their answer contained averments, the discovery of which could not be possibly illegal. The bespeaking of the tickets was cot illegal—the payment of the five shillings was not illegal—the admission of the contract to procure the tickets in a conversa tion with other persons, was not illegal. Mr. Luvatt argued on the same side, and particularly on the informality of the demurrer, on account of its covering too- much. The Loan CHANCELLOR Was of the same opinion; but said that the overruling of it in that view did the defendant no harm. Mr. Hart made some pbsertations on the asperity of Sir Samuel Ron;illy's language in speaking of the conduct of the defendant. The LORD CHANCELLOR was convinced that it was not the penalties of 1001. or 501. that the defendant feared, but the imputation of rognes and vagabonds, which the law deemed persons to be who carried on these illegal transactions.—Demur rer overruled. IVIOG'K PARSON. On Monday application was made at Bow-street Office, by a Clergyman, for a warrant against a person calling himself the Rev. John Shepherd, for defraudinrhim of 301. under the fol lowing circumstances :—A short time since the applicant came to London, and was living at the Northumberland Coffee-house, where the person complained against, calling himself the Rev. John Shepherd, succeeded in persuading him, under various pretences, to lend him 6L He then contrived to get so intimate with the applicant, that he took him to Portsmouth, and intro duced him as a Clergyman among his connections; and he at • length contrived to get 301. and left him. On the same after noon information was given by a Gentleman against a pretended Clergyman, whom he had got acquainted with at a Coffee-house, styling himself the Rev. Mr. Tucker ' lately of Baliol and Mag dalen Colleges Oxford. From the description of his person, there was no LOA but he was the same man ; and a warrant being accordingly issued against him, on Tuesday he was taken into cu Cody, and, in the evening, underwent an examination before Mr. Nares, previous to which, the Magistrate inquired for the prisoner, and, to his surprise, found he was sitting close to him. He then inquired if ht Wai• a Clergyman ? when he acknoWdedged he was not, and, with much presumption, con tinued to keep his seat, till A r. Nares ordered him to stand ; when, on interrogatories being put to Lim, he frankly acknow ledged that he had preached, inarried several couples, and per formed the office in several Churches as a Clergyman. Mr. Nares expresseddhis horror at the mischief his conduct would occasion, as all the parties must be married apin. ' The above charges were then gone into, and he was committed for further examination. Ott Thursday at the above Office, another charge was ex hibited against the fellow who has been committing trauds under the assumed garb of a Clergyman. Mr. William Webb, of Holy well-street, robe-mak , r, c ^arged him with obtaining several clergyman's gowns on hire and purchase, but which he had never paid for, when he gave his addrk ss, " the Rev. W. Tucker, cu rate of Park—treet Chapel" Among them was a sack pudding sleeve gown, value eight guineas. It has already been discovered o:at this telluw has assunn d the names of the Rev. John Tuck, the Rev. John C. - Dicker, and the Rev. J. Shepherd. Instead of his f. , _'‘er being R ccorder of the city of Exeter, as he represented him to he, he turn,: out to be an honest hard-working man, who reticles in a village near Exeter, and gets his living by taking ye getabl f.s to that ci ty for sale. The profession of the mock parson s till within the three last years, was a teacher of writing and arithmetic at schools. The last situati mhe is supposed to have filled, was at Mr. Hom's school, near Paddington.—He was re manded for further ciao' :irAt On Friday, this clerical Gentleman wns again broucht up for exatnination. Although it was not publicly known that he was to be re-examined this day, yet the office was crowded to excess, most of the persons present had charges against the prisoner; but were so much aAiarned of their credulity, that they declined standing forward to prefer their charges ; the following were however made :—John Chanron, who stated himself to be a clerk residing in Red-Crosss-rare, told a long story of the prisoner getting into his acquaintance as Rector of Frome, in Somersetshire. One Sunday morning he called at the prisoner's lodging, in Fetter-lane, and went with him to the Broadway Chapel, Westminster, the prisoner walking in a gown and inll canonicals. They went into the Vestry, and the prisoner intro duced him to the celebrated Dr. Hawker, who was to have preached a charity sermon there ; the prisoner read the prayers. On their way from the chapel,the prisoner told him Dr. Hawker was particularly intimate with his father; he always stopped at his house in Exeter, when he was travelling to and from Ply mouth to London. They walked back to his lodgings, and agreed to meet again the nAtt day. The next day he called again upon the prisoner, who entertained him with some wine. He proposed to the prisoner to go and see Covent-Garden Theatre, as he was but just come from the country. The prisoner repaid he should be very happy to accompany him, but at present be was very short of money, and did not expect his father in WWII till the Sunday following, when he should-get a plentiful suepty. He answered, that made no ditrerence, as be should be MITT to accommodate him viitla Emit cash, and acciadjAS4 414' I