The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-29 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-Juxz 28.

Sittings at Nisi Fries.—(Before Mr. Baron Pigott and a
Common Jury.)
LITTLE P. PRICE.

This was an action to recover 751-, being money alleged
to have been paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the de-
fendant in respect of certain bets upon different horse
RCM

Mr. G. Francis was counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr.
Serjeant Parry and Mr. Joyce counsel for the defendant.
• The plaintil Little had formerly kept the White Horse
tavern, at liiblock, in Hertfordshire, but was now en•
gaged in betting transactions, and the defendant was A
clerk in the Union Bank, in Princes-street, Mansion-
house. The money now sought to be recovered was for
sums varying from 1/. to 171., which the plaintiff had
placed on various horses at the Epsom, Northampton,
Newmarket, and other meetings, at the request of the
plaintiff. during the present year.
The plaintiff was cross-examined at considerable length
by Mr. Serjesnt Parry. He admitted he was in the hail
of attending the betting circles in Farringdon-street,
Bridelane, at the top of the Haymarket, in Hyde-park,
and at other places, but denied that he had been ordered
to move on by the police. He wait a backer of horses, but
did not bet against them, nor wan he a bookmaker. He
had been a bankrupt, but had paid his creditors 7s. Gd. in
the pound, and could have paid them in full if his soli-
citor had acted properly. He himself lost 1001. at these
races; it was a particularly unfortunate season. The
witness was then cross-examined with a view to show
that both the defendant and his wife had repudiated
any liability with regard to bets. He denied that Mrs.
Price had said that unless he could say to whom he
paid the money he should not have a shilling. He never
threatened to expose the young man if be did not
pay, but he regretted to think that if he brought an ac-
tion be might lose his situation in the bank. Mrs. Price
told him that the managerwusatiafied be bad been drawn
into the matter, and that he would not lase his situation.
He might have said if he did not settle the claim he would
probably call upon his mother and father.in-law. That
was not meant by way of threat. He wrote a letter to
the defendant commencing "Dear Dan," in which be said
that his (plaintiff's) mother-in-law and wife would, if he
did not pay 201. on Monday and arrange for the payment
of the remainder, call upon his father-in-law and lay the
whole matter before him, and if that failed then they
would appeal to "the devil knows who. Simply, they mean to
makes great bother." He did not mean to threat en the young
man that unless he paid he would expose him to his relatives ;
but the learned counsel might put that interpretation
upon the letter. He also said in the letter "The conse-
quences to myself are immaterial. but not so to you. . .
Pray do try and make a great effort to pay the money,
Dan, it will save a fuss and bother, and perhaps other
consequences, that for your sake I should extremely regret."
Under a judge's order he gave the names of the parties to
whom he paid the different sums. They were Henry E.
Jones, of Haxell's Exeter Hotel, Strand ; C. F. Wright, of
the Albert Club, Bolt-court, Fleet-street (a betting club) ;
Messrs. Hibbert and Crook, of the Wrestlers, Cam-bridge ;
and Messrs. Welch and Bennett, of the Greyhound Hotel,
Shrewsbury. None of those persons were present ; some
had promised to come, and the others he could not find, or
were away attending races. He had never told the defen-
dant that be was a member of the Victoria Club, and paid
seven guineas a year. He was not a member of that club.
Re-examined—Had been about with the process-server
to try and serve the subpcenas on the people he had
named. _

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence,
The Foreman said the jury dill not wish to hear any
further evidence in the case. They were all agreed that
the verdict should be for the defendant.
Mr. Francis said he had further evidence of the contract
and promise to pay.
The plaintiff wu further re-examined, and raid that it
was not usual to put the names of all the parties for
whom horses were backed in the betting book. He took
the different sums, and entered them in one lump in his
own name. The season in question was a very disastrous
one for backers—there was such a run of ill luck.
Nearly always the favourite horses last.
The only other witness called was the plaintiff's wife,
and this being the whole case,
Mr. Serjeant Parry said that if the jury remained of the
same opinion he would not address them.
The Foreman--One opinion is not altered in the Wet.