The Express.
London, England, 1864-01-14 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-JAx. 13.

Sittings at Nisi Prins at Westmiristsr.—(Bders Mr. Jarboe
Sims sad a Comma Jury.)

BILL O. HINMAN. -BITTING ON 13012113.-DANAGSS 1001.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was de-
scribed as a betting man, against the defendant, a butcher,
both residing M Hull, to recover the sum of 100 i. under the
following circumstances :
It appeared that on the 14th of September last the plain-
tiff received orders from a person named Wright, residing
at Full wood's.rents, Holborn, to back a hone mined Catch-
'em-.dive for the Cambridgeshire Stakes. He tionsequeelly
went to the defendant, who also bets on bone ness, sad
asked him if he thought he could get any ow to bet against
the horse, and upon the defendant replying that be thought
he could, the plaintiff gave him an order to back the horse,
bat be was not to take Ism odds thau 30f. to it. The de-
fendant went away, and subsequently, on the came day,
the plaintiff met the defendaat, who informed him that be
had taken a bet of 2001. to 6/. from a person maned Free-
man, and asked to be allowod to "stand in" a little in the
bet The plaintiff accordingly agreed and let him stand
in half the het, which gave the defendant a chance of
either grinning 100/. or Iselin 31. Ou the 27th October the
ram was run, and Catch-'em-Alive woo. On tee Monday
following, according to the custom which prevails amongst
betting men in Hull. Freeman handed the bet of 2uo/. over
to the defendant who, Messed of paying the plaintiff his
1004, kept the whole. The plaintiff subsequently met him
in the streets, and asked him for the money. The
defendant said that he had to pay for some
bullock., and had paid the money away, but
if the plaintiff would not let the people of
Hull know anything about his keeping the money
be would pay him off in 12 months by instalments.
The plaintiff said it was too bad, but he afterwards agreed
to let him do so; but upon meeting the defendant in the
streets shortly afterwarils he (the defendant) told him that
it was an illegal transaction altogether, the law would not
give it him, and be would not pay him a farthing. The
action was now brought to recover the sum of 1001., being
half the money that the defendant received from
Freeman. _ _ _

The plaintiff and several other witnesses were called is
support of the case, and proved that the defendant had
several times whilst standing before the bar of the Bull end
Sun public•lionse in Hull admitted that he had received
the money, sod promised to band over the sum of WO/.
The plaintiff was cross-examined, and said be had for
the last 15 or 16 years been connected with the turf.
He had bet under other names than William Bell. He
was sometimes called " Fieh." They Galled him so because
he was formerly the owner of some fishing snacks. It was
sot because he had been coooerned in some " fishy" tran-
sactions. The bet was fist made on behalf of a Hr. Wright,
but upon his telling that gentleman what the amount of
the bet was, Wright told him it was too small an amount
for him to care anything about, and be (the plaintiff) might
have it for himself.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's otee,
Mr. Dishy Seymour submitted that the pl►intif could not
succeed. The debt in question wus is connection with
betting transactions, which were held to be illegal, and
thus the whole affair was illegal, and could not be upheld
in a court of law.

Mr. Thompson, on the other side, submitted that this
one was different. This was a ease where a man had re.
osived 100 i. to band over to soother, and had appropriated
it to his own use.

Hh lordship refused to nonsuit, and
Digby Seymour thereupon called evidence is reply
to the mss, which was to the following effect :—Thedefen-
dant, on the day in question, met the plaintiff, and told him
that be bad received a " tip" from London to back
Catch-'em-alive for the Cambridgeshire race, but no-
thing was said by the plaintiff about the defendant
trying to get any bets. Subsequently the defendant met
Freeman, who said, " Fish has gots tip, and is filliag all the
books." The defendant asked him if be would make a bet
with him, and Freeman offered 2001. to fa., which the de-
fendant accepted and booked. Shortly afterwards the de-
fendant visited the Bull and Sun public-bowel, when &person
named Hartley mine in, and asked the defendant to let him
have half the bet, but he replied he could sot for Charley,
' meaning the plaintiff. might want a part of it, and as the
plaintiff had let him have half-shares is beta he could not
well refuse it the plaintiff wanted a share in this one. The
defendant denied that he took the bet for the plaintiff at
all, and swore that it was made entirely on his own account
to crommainination, he said that the plaintiff did ask him
on the day the bet was settled for half the amount, bat he
laughed at him, and treated it as a joke. He never said be
paid for some bullocks with it, and he would pay him
back. He wan in want of mosey about that time, and the
plaintiff had promised to lend him some. He bad bet about
four years, and during that time had lost • great deal of
money.
Mr. Dishy Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Mellish, Q.C., and Mr. Thompson for
the defendant.
_ .

The Jury were lorded up for some time, and ultimately
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 1001.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-.l.tx. 13.

&Stings ill Banoo.—(Before Lord Chief Justice Eno, and
Justices Williams, Willa, and Keating.)

COOK r. COLEBROOK.-DISPCTID PAYMENT.

The plaintiffs in this case were the well-knows Arm of
Cook and SOU. in St. Paul's-churchyard, and the defend-
ant, a draper in Jersey. had been a customer of theirs.
On the 7th of May last the defendant called ■t the
plaintiffs' countioglionae and paid 2001. off his
amount ; but the question in the cause was whether be had
remitted another 200/, on the 17th May. The principal
point in the defendant's cue was that In had two documents
acknowledging the receipt of 31.10/., and be stated that he
bad in fact made two payments, though be could not recol-
lect in what form the second, remittance was made. The
mas for the plaintiffs was that only one 2001. bad been
paid, and that a letter acknowledging the receipt
of it had been written by a clerk, who supposed that the
mosey had come by post, and who was ignorant that it had
been paid in the counting-hoe" and that a receipt, had
been given for it there. The trial took place at Guildhall,
when the jury, after a peat deal of consideration end ap-
parently with great difficulty, found for the defendant.
Mr. M. Smith. Q.C., now moved for a rule for a new
trial, on the ground that the verdict was agninat the weight
et evidence..

Role granted.
ALVAREZ DI L► ROS►S P. ►IITT►.—DICGS sUPPLUD TO •
PIIDVI►II VMDCL.

The plaintiff in this case was a medial man at the cad
end of the town, sad his case was that he was employed
daring the temporary absence of the regular doctor
to attend upon the crew of the Anti a /Waviest ves-
sel of war, on board of which a serious mutiny oocurred
some time ago in the names. The defendant was a lieute-
nant on board that vessel, mad he wee now sued to reoover
the price of some drop which the plaintiff saki that he had
supplied for the crew. The plaintiff's case was that he had
supplied the medicines upon the faith of the defer/eat
having said that be should beeid, and at the trial the jury
found a verdict for him for 1. Of.

Seriesst Ihillantine now moved for • rule to ester
• verdict for the defendant, upon the ground that WIN/
had pissed, awarding to the plaintiff's ease, animated
simply to a guarantee, and was thereto» not valid IMAMS
it was not in writing. Another branch of the rule was for
• new trial upon the ground that the verdict was against
the weigbt of evidence, the defendant denying that ant
such convertation as that spoken to by the plaintiff beet
taken place, and that any drugs were wanted far the ship.
Rule granted.
ALVIALL DI LA 108• B C. WWI.

In this cam the same plaintiff sued the doctor of the
email to recover a emu far doles his work cm board the
ship dories the time he was away ; and the jury found for
him for 851 —as amount less than the &Motif claimed,
and more than the defendant said was due.
NT. Griffite now moved for a rule to eater s verdict
for the defendant, upon the ground that the plaintiff
IFS' not a figistAired medical practitioner is t►is conetry,
and therefore could nut recover for the services whisk be
had rendered.

Rule gmie el.
Sittings at NW Prior in Mibilinex.—(Belore Yr. Judi*
Bylai and • Clornroas Jury.)

[OPT WIG V. WAINSLIIT.--11•Lal OF • /1081111111111.—ALLMED

tATION.

This Imam baths Is mom, shimagas upon thisormad
AM the *Mill had bon biased by Use asla
pertheeins baker's birders by • fobs sapromitlisa.
XL Mel AUdassa id ILL Clods UN& append