The Sun.
London, England, 1864-08-03 00:00:00

The " Stalybridge Infant" Charged with
Cheating at Cards.

At the Manchester City Police Court, yesterday, Samuel
Hurst, the landlord of the Wilton Arms, Mayes-street,
Sudehill, and who is known in pugilistic circles as the
Stalybridge Infant, was summoned for allowing gambling
in his house, and also for stealing £ll from Joseph John
Cobbett, for the complainant, said the chartse
against the defendant was that he stole money from the
complainant Kelly by cheating him at cards. The police
had also a summons against the defendant for permitting
gaming in his house of an unlawful character. Kelly had
carried on business in New Orleans, but two months ago
he returned to this country, bringing money he had saved
there. About three weeks ago he came to Manchester, and
became acquainted with aMr Saqui. About 2 o'clock on
the 25th July, at the invitation of a person named Henry,
they went into the defendant's house. The complainant
Kelly was induced by Hurst to play at cards, in the course
of which some whiskey and water was brought in, which
no doubt was drugged, for after drinking it Kelly became
unconscious of what he was about, although still continu-
ing the gambling, in the course of which Hurst got £lO of
Saqui did all he possibly could to induce the complain.
ant to leave, but he was in great difficulty, because a con-
siderable number of persons were present, the whole of
whom were acting apparently in concert with Hurst.
When Kelly had lost all his money, Saqui got him to his
home, where he became excessively ill. When he re
covered he had no recollection whatever of what took
place in the house.—The complainant said about two
o'clock in the day they entered the defendant's house.
Saqui and Henry began to play at bagatelle, while
Hurst talked with him about America, Henry then
challenged any ono present to toss for " glasses round."
Hurst accepted the challenge and won. Afterwards Henry
challenged any one to a game at all-fours, and ultimately
Henry and the complainant played against Hurst and an-
other; subsequently the complainant and Saqui played
against Hurst and another. During the second game the
complainant drank a glass of whisky and became uncon-
scious. Ho believed he was drugged, and did not know
anything that took place afterwards. When he went to
the house ho had £4l—when ho recovered his conscious-
ness at night he felt very ill, but was sober, and found
that he had lost all his money.—ln answer to Mr Roberts,
who was for the defendant, complainant said that he
never kept a gambling-house ; ho might have lost a
dollar at a sitting
,at euchre, an American card game—he
had lost 50 dollars in betting at roulette, on a race course.
He had visited gaining houses. He had attended at a
mock auction, in Manchester, to pass the time. He could
not have been made drunk by the glass of whisky—a
pint of whisky would take no effect upon him, as he had
been in the habit of drinking it since he was a boy. In
America he had drunk a pint of whisky before breakfast,
and then been sober. He lived upon the interest of the
money he had sayed.—lnipector Taylor, of the detective
police, said he went with Inspector Buckley and com-
plainant to the defendant, who was told that the
complaint against him was that he had done complainant
out of £ll, and had drugged him. Hurst merely said,
Well, what about Josian Saqui, an auctioneer, said,
after the four-handed games at Hurst's, the latter sug-
gested to complainant that they should have a game to
themselves, and complainant was so stupificd by drink, that
notwithstanding witness's caution he continued playing.
They bet SI on the cut, and Kelly generally cut a king or a
ten whereas Hurst generally cut an ace, and won. Hurst
then said that they should play for £2, and when com-
plainant placed that amount down, Hurst asked to make
it £3, then £l, and then £5, for which they played,
and Hurst won. Witness at one time asked where
the aces were as he had not seen them lately, and
then took the pack, and counting them, found there were
only 43 cards. He asked defendant if he considered it fair
to play with a man who was almost insensible with 48
cards. Defendant told him to mind his own business. A
new pack was called for, end they then played for £lO a
game. At last, when complainant had lost all his money
witness took him home. In cross-examination, witness
admitted that ho conducted a mock auction. Hurst was
the winner throughout except of one trifling game. The
play was finished about six o'clock. Hyman Mysell, a tra-
veller, living in Miller's-lane, said he was at Hurst's, but
the waiter would not allow anybody to stand at the table.
Wh• nit was Hurst's deal he would keep six cards in his
hand, which after the pack was shuffled and cut, he put on
the top of the pack and dealt them. After complainant and
Saqui left, witness said he thought be was entitled to a
little of the robbery and he was given a glass of liquor.
The defence was that the c ,mplainant was a free agent
with his money, and that there was no evidence of the
drugging, or it was asked how was it no one else was
drugged, but the man who lost the money. Complainant
lost his money as money was lost, without any unfair
dealing on the part of the defendant.—William Brown, a
pugilist, William Frost, a warehouseman, who had been
tried upon the complaint of the defendant for stealing
lead and acquitted ; James Coyne, of Wolverhampton, who
had come to Manchester for a sparring benefit, and Chris.
topher Colman, a warehouseman of Tib-street, who assisted
at tho sparring benefit were asamined for the defendant.
They said that the complainant exhibited an the occasion
no appearance of having been dragged, and that the play
was fair, Mr C. J. S. Walker said the magistrates did not
think it would be of any use to send the case before a jury,
but they would fine Hurst £•5 for allowing gambling in his
house, and would desire the police to represent his case to
the magistrates on the licensing day.