The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-08 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE,

HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, April 7.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
MYER AND ANOTHER V. EA.RNETT.

This action, which was to recover a balance of £l,BOO,
under a contract entered into by the plaintiffs, who are gun
manufacturers at Liege, for the delivery of 20,000 rifle bar-
rels to the defendant, for the use of the American Govern-
ment, was resumed to-day.

Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Sir G. Tionyman, were for the
plaintiffs; and Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Murphy for the
defendant.

The nature of the action was of a very dry and uninte-
resting characting, and this morning a number of witnesses
were examined, with a view to make out the defendant's
plea, that the rifles that were supplied were not according
to sample, and were of a different gauge to those contracted
for, and the evidence appeared to make out both these points
in a most satisfactory manner.

The jury, in the result, without any hesitation, returned
a verdict for the defendant.

1 (Before Mr. Justice Wightman and a Common Jury.)
ROBERTS V. BROWN.
This was an action of a rather peculiar nature, the plain-
tiff alleging that the defendant had entered into an agree-
ment with him that he should have the use of a racehorse
called the Colleen Bawn, for the space of one year, under
certain conditions, and he sued for damages in consequence
of his having broken that agreement. The defendant did
not deny that he had made the agreement referred to in the
declaration, but alleged that he had broken it with the con-
sent of the plaintiff.

Sergeant Parry and Mr. Garth were for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Hannen for the defendant.
The case was opened by the learned counsel for the plain-
tiff as one which the latter had been compelled to bring for
the purpose of vindicating his character, but the facts did not
appear at all to justify such a suggestion, although the cir-
cumstances connected with the case were certainly, as above
stated, rather peculiar. The plaintiff, it appeared. is pay-
master of the 12th Laneers;and defendant is assistant-sur-
geon to the 18th Hussars; they were both stationed at Al-
dershot, and formerly were on very friendly terms. The
defendant had purchased a racing mare called the Colleen
Bawn some time previous to the year 1862, and she had
won one race, but not being well up in racing affairs, it
seemed that he consulted Captain Roberts, who had made
racing a favourite occupation, and who had himself ridden
in several races as a gentleman jockey, as to what was best
to be done with the mare, and in March of last year an
agreement was drawn up between them, the tez ma of which
were that Colleen Bawn was to be placed in the hands of
Captain Roberts, and he was to enter her for any stakes he
thought fit, the money for those entries being paid by de-
fendant, and the latter also undertook to pay Capt. Roberta
10 guineas a month for the keep of the mare, and to find a
man to look after her, and he was to have one-third of all
the winnings. The mare did run at several races after this,
but shewas unsuccessful on every occasion, and the plaintiff
alleged that her want of success was owing to the de:endant
having interfered and entered her for stakes where she had
no chance of winning; and it appeared that in June the
defendant sent the mare to the stables of Mr. Payne, a horse
dealer, in Milton-street, Dorset-square, and she was sold by
him to a French horse dealer for £55, to be taken abroad.
Under these circumstances, the plaintiff now sought to re-
cover damages for the loss he alleged he had sustained by
the breach of engagement by the defendant.
Captain Roberts, the plaintiff, was examined at consider-
able length, and he proved a good many of the above facts,
and also said that if the mare had been entered for races
where she would have met animals of her own class, she
would have been much more successful, and would have
won a good many races during the twelve months. He did
not, however, mention any particular stake where this re-
sult was likely to have occurred.
Upon being cross-examined, he said the mare at the time,
or shortly before she came into his possession, had dreadful
bad feet ; there was also a tendency to spavin, and she was
" thick-winded," and he certainly did not consider her a
sound mare. (A laugh.) He was then questioned as to
money matters, and admitted that there had been some dis-
putes between him and the defendant in relation to money
he had represented he had paid for entering the mare for
several stakes. He also said the defendant had sued him
upon a £lOO bill, for which he declared that he had only
received £B3, and said that the rest was stopped, as he sup-
posed, for interest ; and it appeared that the present action
was not commenced antil after the defendant had taken pro-
ceedings against him in reference to this bill for £lOO.
Mr. Hawkins, inlais address to the jury for the defendant,
contended that there was not the slightest ground for such
an action being brought, and he really could not understand
what damage the plaintiff had sustained. It was admitted
that the only advantage he could have derived from the
transaction was by the mare winning the races for which
she was entered, and he urged that it was not very likely
that such an animal as the one described, lame, thick-winded,
and with a tendency to spavin, would have been very suc-
cessful as a racehorse. (A laugh.)
The defendant was then examined, and he contradicted
Captain Roberts in almost every one of the statements he
had made in reference to the transaction. He admitted
that he had entered into the agreement in question ori-
ginally with the plaintiff, and said that in all the races
she ran subsequently she was entered with the sanction
of the plaintiff, and she was unsuccessful on every occa-
sion, and they both agreed that it would be better to sell
her, and the plaintiff himself said that he would try to
do so. The defendant also stated that he had ascer-
tained that Captain Roberts had charged him for
stakes that he had never paid, and with regard to the £lOO
bill, he declared that he gave him £93 in money, and that
he also received £7 10s for a horse that was sold which be-
longed to him (the defendant), so that in point of fact hero- j
ceived £lOO lOs for his £lOO bill, and he did not charge him
a farthing for interest. The defendant also swore positively
that when the £lOO bill was given he and Capt. Roberts
mutually a greed to cancel the agreement that had been en-
tered into, and the plaintiff promised to destroy it.
Sergeant Parry, in replying upon the whole case, con-
tended that a question of character was involved, and he
complained of the defendant having instructed his counsel
to drag before the court the pecuniary affairs of the plain-
tiff, which, he submitted, had nothing whatever to do with
the real question at issue between the parties. He then
said that although the mare, probably, was not in good con-
dition at the time the plaintiff first had her placed in his
hands, still she improved under his care, and if the agree-
ment had been fairly carried out, and she had been judi-
ciously entered to contend with animals of her own class,
hshaevewboeulend ,
ano sourced oti b to,
fh
pa vr
oe
fit w otno stehvee rpallaot
nf,
ttthffe, seans
would form their own estimate of the amount of damages
dtakthees,jaulti•yd
to which he was entitled.
The learned judge having summed up, the jury retired
to deliberate. In a short time they returned into court, and
gave a verdict for the plaintiff--damages, one farthing.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—OLOUCESTEn, April 6.
(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
CORBETT V. PALMER AND RITSBAND.-BREACH OF PRO'
MIRE OF MAARIAGE.
This was an action brought by Mr. Corbett, clerk to the
Canal Company,
Worcestershire and Staffordshire
against