Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/311

 274

A PHILIPPINE DECISION. THE novelty of the facts involved, as well as the conflicting opinions of the courts touching transactions similar to those in this case, lend interest to the following recent decision delivered by Hon. Arthur F. Odlin, Judge of the Court of First Instance, in the City of Manila : — The plaintiff brings replevin for a pony, native gig (or calesa), and harness which he alleges are his property, and which the de fendant wrongfully took from him. The evidence shows that the plaintiff in January, 1902, arranged for a raffle at which the holder of the ticket bearing the number last drawn should be the winner of the property. It is conceded that this raffle was illegal and void, being prohibited by an ordinance of the City of Manila enacted in December, 1901. The defendant held the number last drawn, and in good faith, supposing himself to be the winner, and therefore the owner, entered the calesa and proceeded to drive away. The plaintiff claims that he knew nothing of this action and gave no assent thereto. Just about the time that this was taking place (the evi dence as to the exact moment is conflicting) it was discovered that one number held by the witness Irwin was outside the box and had never been drawn. Whereupon the defendant offered Irwin a half interest in the property, and the latter was and is very content. (Whether his contentment will increase or decrease when he reads this decision is a very pretty psychological problem.) Other holders of tickets considered this result irregular and requested a new drawing, and arrangements would have been completed by the plaintiff, according to his statement, had not the subject matter of the raffle disap peared. I am satisfied that the defendant was

guilty of no fraudulent intent. There is no doubt that he believed himself the winner of the raffle. It is equally true that the plain tiff never gave any direct permission to the defendant to take away the property, and never made any formal delivery. The Court is therefore urged by the plaintiff to decide this case in his favor because he has proved title in himself and no delivery to the de fendant, and because the alleged title in defendant is not such a title as the law recog nizes. But the evidence shows that the plaintiff was not only guilty of participating in an illegal act, but also that he has received something like $201 from the sale of raffle tickets, and the Court ought not to restore to him the property which enabled him to receive that money unless the law clearly en titles him thereto. The later decisions tend to establish the rule which I deem the cor rect one. . . . Now must this Court decide whether this raffle was executed or is still executory? Supposing that the property had been de posited with a third party who had no knowl edge whatever of the raffle and that the winner had drawn an order signed by the plaintiff on this third party for the delivery of the property and the plaintiff had sought to enjoin the presentation of such order : would such injunction be granted? Clearly not. Another view of the case is this. The plaintiff admits that he would be estopped to claim the property had the raffle been " regular." Ought this Court to distinguish be tween " regular " and " irregular " raffles when all raffles are unlawful? A few illus trations will show to what extreme this doc trine would lead. I am of course well aware that since this ordinance took effect there