
    DOWS v. WHITE.
    September 16, 1837.
    
      Rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered,, for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence.
    
    An affidavit of defence, which averred that the consideration of a check, on which suit was brought, was for “ lottery tickets,” without stating that the sale was in Pennsylvania, was held defective, under the act of 28th March, 1836.
    THIS action was brought on a check given by defendant to plaintiff. A copy was duly filed, and the defendant filed the following affidavit of defence:
    “ Joseph White, being duly sworn, says, that he has a just and legal defence to the whole of the plaintiff’s demand, the nature and character of which is, that the instrument of writing or check whereon this action is founded, was given by this deponent for lottery tickets, and upon no other consideration whatever, purchased by this deponent from Santell, to whom or bearer said check was made payable.”
    
      Chew, for plaintiff.
    
      Heiskell, for defendant.
    Authorities cited : 1 Binney 170; Roscoe on Bills 115.
   Per Curiam.—The

affidavit of defence is not sufficiently certain. The consideration of the check may have been for lottery tickets sold the defendant in another state, where dealing in them is not prohibited, as in Pennsylvania, (Stroud's Purd. tit. Gambling and Lotteries,) and consequently the contract might not be illegal, and yet the affidavit be true as far as it goes. Leave is however given to file a supplemental affidavit of defence.

This was filed, averring the sale to have been in Philadelphia.

Rule discharged.  