The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-03 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCREQ.CER, Dm 2.

Sittings at Nisi rrius, at Westminster, before Mr Baron
Martin and a Common Jury.)
TUCKER V. 11AYLEY.

This was an aotion brought by the plaintiff, a betting
man, against the defendant, a gentleman who was repre-
sented to be possessed of considerable property in the vici-
nity of Cavendish-square, to recover the sum of £lO2 la.
for money lent, money paid, and money found to be due
upon an account stated.
Tho defendant paid a sum of 17 is. into court, and
pleaded that that was sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's
claim.

Mr Digby Seymour, Q.C., and Mr Butler Rigby were
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr Iluddleston, Q.C., and Mr
Prentide Were for the defendant:
It appeared from the evidence fer the plaintiff that he and
a person named Powell ti ere in the habit of taking commis-
sions from gentlemen for the purpose of betting on horses
at the different races—the former using the name of Wood,
and the latter that of Johnson, for private re aeons of their
own. The defendant was a gentionan, who it was repre-
sented was very fond of speculating upon huge races, and
was ititrodtteed to the plaintiff as a " principal,' who wished
to gi vo him acommissiou, by the man Powell, at the Saracen's
Head Hotel, Snowhill, when, according to the plaintiff's
account, he was instructed by the defendant to batk the fol.
lowing heroes for him at the annexed prices—Carisbrook, at
£lO to Anb—LMorocco, at £lO to i£ iOO--Baldwin, at £lO
to £soo—Mail Train, at 410 to £2so—Summerside, at :§lO
to £soo—Battaglia, at £lO to £soo—Retainer, at £lO to
£loo—Calista Colt, at £lO to LW—Stispicion, at £lO to
£lso—and Cantonette. at £5 to 1500. The plaintiff alleged
that three lists were made out of the horses and the amounts
one of which was supplied to the defendant, one he kept
himself, and one Powell had. that one was now produced
by Powell, and on the part of defendant it was contended
that it was a forgery. However, the plaintiff backed the
horses, and all of them lost i and subsequently defendant
refused to refund the sum he (plaintiff) had paid fOr him;
viz., £95. The rest of the amount claimed was made up by
the sum of Lt lie which the plaintiff lent the defendant, and
which the defendant no* paid into coil t,
The plaintiff was called, and in cross-examination said
that he merely used the name of Wood in the betting-ring,
because it Was usual amongst betting inch to d 5 so; The
Prince of Wales did the same. (Laughter.)
The defence was that the whole of the transaction OU the
part of the plaintiff and Powell was a kraut' and a jugi-,16
the purpose of doing the defenduit out of the sum in ques-
tion, I)e.iidQs the sum of 4200 which it was alleged plaintiff
owed him, instead of his owing the latter anything. Ac-
cording to the defendant's account, the plaintiff was intro-
duced to him as en honint that by Po*elli who afterwards
turned 'out to be a colleague of his, and he induced defendant
to back ten horses at the prices aboy noted 19! the Cesare-
witch Stakes; but instead or one of them Leigh the horse
mentioned in the list produced to-day, viz,, Calista colt, it
was Thalestris, which won the stakes ; and therefore the
defendant on the balance was entitled to the sum of £2OO
from the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the list
which was made out at the time was not the one now pro-
duced, the one now produced being a forgery by the plain-
tiff and Powell, for the purpose of not only doing defendant
out of the sum of £2OO upon the horse Thalestris, but also
for the purpose of getting a verdict for the sure of .C 9,5 over
and above the sum paid into court.
The case occupied the Court a considerable time, and
eventually
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, whfith, was
receiv,

'ed With a mat