The Express.
London, England, 1868-05-12 00:00:00

LAW INTi

mmoBNcE.

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.—MAY 11.
After Term NW Prins &Wisp at Weetmineter.—(Before
Mr. Justice Molise end Common Juries.)
TOCKI/T t. Tome.

This was an action to recover • sum of mosey, part of
the Cup Stakes at Ascot. The defendant pleaded first,
never indebted ; and soundly, that the mosey was paid.
Mr. Begley wee counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Iderre-
weather and Mr. Smith for the defendant.
The plaintiff, who resides near Thirsk, in York-
shire. is the owner of the rue-horse called Zenobia.
la 1865 be entered into an arrangement with a Mr.
Elliott, whereby the latter paid all the expenses
of training and running the mare, the plaintiff
receiving one-half the gross winnings. That arrange-
ment wee continued during the ruing season of 1866.
In December, 1866 the plaintiff was introduced to
the defendant, who is • farmer residing near Tunbridge,
in Kent, when the defendant entered into a similar
ent with him for 1867, and the mare was sent
from ffr'kehire to the defendant. She ran and won the
Ascot Cup in Jane last, the stakes had been made up to
808/. 2a. nett. The total amount of the stakes was paid
over to the defendant, but he bed not paid the plaintiff his
half. The mare was returned to the plaintiff the third
week in January, and she was still in his possession. The
defendant wrote to plaintiff that he had received the
Makes, and held them under sufferance.
The plaintiff, in hie cross-examination, deposed that •
person named Arkhill claimed the mare, and intended to
prevent her running. There were cross actions between
Mott and Arkhill shoat the mare. He signed • docu-
ment at defendant's suggestion, stating that he had dis-
posed of the mare upon certain conditions to the defen-
dant. That was to enable the defendant to run her without
Arkhill's interference. Elliott is a trainer at Richmond
in Yorkshire. The mare came home to him in December
1866. He first saw the defendant at Elliott's. The mare
had been given up to him before then. He heard that
Arkhill had something to do with the mare when she wan
at Elliott's. He did not know that Arkhill had the mare
I from Elliott on the same term, as plaintiff let her to
Elliott. He believed there was a dispute about the
time between Arkhill and Elliott as to the training ex-
penses of the mare. Mr. Elliott was the only person
during 1866 who could wretch the mare ; be knew nothing
of Arkhill's arrangements with Elliott. The mare was
1 now in Yorkshire.
The defence was that the mare wu let to Elliott for her
racing career, not for any definite period, and that having
assigned his right in her to Arkhill he had no power over
her and could not have returned her to the plaintiff.
Arkhill was the person who was entitled to the stakes.
After defendant bad the mare delivered at his training
stables Arkhill claimed her, and defendant informed plaintiff
of it. He entered the mare for the Ascot Stakes, and she
wen. He met Arkbill on the day he wu going to
Weatherby's for the Stakes. Arkhill said he was going
to stop the payment of the stakes, and in consequence of
what he said he went to Weatherby's and got the stakes,
and a day or two after he paid half over to Arkblll, who
gave him a verbal guarantee.
Mr. Arkhill was called to prove that Elliott assigned the
mare to him for her racing career, which meant as long as
a horse could stand training.
Mr. Bailey objected that Elliott could not aturigu more
than the interest he took in the mare from plaintiff's
letting to him.
Mr. Merryweather contended that the letting to Elliott
by the plaintiff was for the mare's racing career.
Mr. Arkhill said Zenobia was left with Elliott to
train. He had no idea that Elliott had parted with the
mare. He demanded her back, and bad sines brought an
action against him. He claimed her from the defendant,
and told him by letter that he would stop her racing.
At the conclusion of the defendant's case a verdict was
entered for the plaintiff for the amount in the declaration,
subject to the opinion of the court above.

BAIL 00IIRT.-MAY 10.
Sittings at Nisi Prius.—(Before Mr. Justice Hannan and
a Common Jury.)
PARSONS V. PARSONS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Miss
Matilda Parsons, against the defendant, who was her great
uncle, residing at Darlington, to recover the sum of
311. 15a. for services rendered to the defendant as an
ainecuensis and companion. There was also a count for
slander. The defendant pleaded several pleas, denying
his liability.
Mr. Ditty Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Steel were counsel
for the p tiff ; Mr. Serjeant Robinson and Mr. Besley
for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant, who was an old gentle-
man 76 years of age, required in January, 1866, some one
to be in constant attendance upon him, and to act as his
ancanuthais, and engaged the defendant for that purpose,
and in return for which services she was to receive her
board and lodging and 251. a year pocket money, and to be
treated ashis daughter. She accordingly went toDarlington
and stayed there for a considerable tame performing those
duties till her health began to fail her, and she found
she could not accompany him in the phaeton in all
weathers, and told him so, whereupon he gave her a
formal month's notice to leave, and before that time ex-
pired peremptorily expelled her from his service, and
accused her, before his housekeeper, of being dishonest.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Mr. Digby
Seymour and Mr. Serjeant Robinson adjourned into the
learned judge's room and came to an arrangement that a
verdict should be entered for the plaintiff, damages 501.,
and a full retractation of any expressions of the defendant
that the plaintiff might have thought conveyed an impu•
tation of dishonesty.

COURT OF RXCHEQUER. —MAY 10.
Sittings at Nisi Prins. —(Botore Baron Martin and
a Special Jury.)
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. STEVENS._

This was an information against the defendant, a law
stationer in Bell-yard, Fleet-street, to recover two penalties
of 501. each for not assesing himself to the income tax in
the years 1865 and 1866. The matter arose out of an
inquiry which took place into the defendant's claim for
compensation in consequence of his premises being re-
quired for the new law courts.
The Solicitor-General, Mr. J. Locke, Q.C., and Mr.
Crompton Hutton appeared for the Crown, and Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. R. G. Williams for the defen-
dant.

When the jury bad entered the box an arrangement was
made under which two gentlemen who bad been engaged
in the compensation cue were to examine the defendant's
books, and in the event of it being found that the com-
missioners of income-tax had under-assessed him he wu
to pay the difference.
Mr. Hawkins said the defendant wu anxious that it
should be understood that the proceeding against him was
not for having nude a false return, but for not having
slammed himself to the income-tax.

A verdict for the crown, with a nominal min of 1001.,
was then entered, it being intim►ted that the penalties
would not be enforced.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-MAY 10.
(Before Mr. Acting-Commissioner Haslitt.)
IN NC HEBRAIC VINOOL