The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-19 00:00:00

assistance from his friends, who desired to cheer the
evening of his days, and on the 15th of June, 1848,
he expired, a man of fallen fortunes, a crushed spirit,
and a broken heart, but universally beloved by all
who knew and could estimate the man, apart from
the politician."
Votes of thanks were passed unanimously to the
President, Vice-Presidents, Members, and Associates
of the Council, and the Secretary ; and the Presi-
dent, in returning thanks, gave a memoir of the late
George Stephenson, and his connexion with the com-
bination of the Fire Tubes and the Blast Pipe in the
Locomotive, which constituted it the life of the pre-
sent railway system.
The address was responded to very warmly, and
th© meeting adjourned until Tuesday, February 6th,
when the following paper was announced to be read
—" On the Abbattoirs of Paris."—By IL B. Gran-
tham, M. Inst. C. E.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, Jan. 18.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCIIELL )

VIE ROYAL ITALIAN OPERA, COVENT-GARDEN-MOG-
GIONI U. DELAFIELD.

This was an action by Manfredo Moggioni against
:Mr. Edward Thomas Delatield, the less( e of the Royal
Italian Opera, Covent-garden, to recover 1951. ls. for
wages and literary services rendered in the translation
and adaptation of operas for the establishment. Judg-
ment had been suffered to go by default, and a writ of
inquiry was executed to assess the damages.
Mr. E. James appeared as Counsel for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Kennedy on the part of the defendant.
From the opening speech on the part of the plaintiff, it
appeared that he (an Italian) had been engaged by Mr.
Beale in the year 1846, when in conjunction with Signor
i!ersiani and Signor Gulletta he commenced the Italian
Opera at Covent-garden, to act as foreign correspondent
and interpreter, at 801. a year; to translate Italian operas
into the English language at 81. each; and to adapt French
and German operas into Italian operas. The latter
work was a very difficult one, and 501. was claimed for
each opera. In August, 1847, Mr. Delafield entered
into an agreement by which he became the sole lessee,
and the present claim was made in respect of services
rendered to that gentleman, he having continued the
plaintiff in the same employment as Mr. Beak ; the
plaintiff had claimed of the defendant 2641., and gave
him credit for 681, 195., leaving a balance, which was
now sought to be recovered, of 195/. is. In the parti-
culars of demand the plaintiff claimed 251. for trans-
lating and for writing the libretto of the opera La Favo-
rita ; for translating and writing the libretto of Les
Hugenots, 501.; for translating and writing the libretto
of Fidelio, 501.; for superintending and translating six
operas into English, 481.; fur translating Linda di Cha-
niuuni, 81.; and for one year's salary as foreign corre-
spondent, 801.; making the sum claimed. Credit had
been given for the amount received, leaving 1951. ls.
due to the plaintiff. lie (Mr. James) understood that
the speculation had been an unprofitable one, but that
was no reason the plaintiff should nut be paid for the
services he had rendered.

Mr. T. F. Beale, musical seller, Regent-street, stated
that he was manager of the Italian Opera, Covent-gar-
den, in 1846, and in August, 1847, Mr. De'afield exe-
cuted an agreement to take the theatre, commencing the
season of 1843. He had engaged the plaintiff at 801. a-
year as correspondent, and agreed to give him 81. for
rendering an opera into the English language, which
was a very moderate sum. The plaintiff was also en-
gaged in translating the operas mentioned from the
French and German, into Italian. Ho considered 50/.
each was a very reasonable sum for such a difficult
task. The plaintiff had translated into English
Les Huguenots, Guglielmo Tell, Tancredi, Linda di
Cltanzouni, I Capuletti a Montecchi, La Farorita, and
L'enerrntola; he had adapted for the Italian stage La
Favoyita and Les Huguenots, and also Fidelio, which lat-
ter opera was not produced. The translated operas were
printed and sold.
Mr. M. C. Shee, who said he was " clerk of the hall,"
or stage entrance at the theatre, proved the attend-
ance of the plaintiff.
Signor Belletta, a music composer, and Signor Card
gave evidence to show that the plaintiff conducted the
toreign correspondence.
Mr. George Lindley, the composer, stated that 61. for
translating, and 501. for adapting an opera, were very
moderate charges.
Mr. Chappell, the 'music seller in New Bond-street,
said he had often paid 1001. for an adaptation. In
his evidence Mr. Beale mentioned that he had recently
paid 1354 for an adaptation of the French opera
Haydee.

Mr. KENNEDY addressed the jury on the part of the
defendant, whom he described es a gentleman of fortune,
and member of a well known firm. Judgment had been
suffered to go by default through some mistake; but he
fat confident that the jury would not give the exorbi-
tant sum now demanded. The jury would perceive that
it was an attempt to make Mr. Delafield, who certainly
had not found the undertaking a profitable one, pay the
debt of Mr. Beale. There was no evidence that the de-
fendant had engaged the plaintiff at the sums mentioned,
and he was sure the jury would be very moderate as to
the amount they assessed.
In the course of the address of the Learned Counsel
(Mr. Kennedy), the Court was convulsed with laughter
by a remark made by the Under-Sheriff. The Learned
Counsel was describing the:sale of the opera books by
the little boys in the street, which excited the risible
faculties of the audisins94 on which the Under-Sheriff,
who was reading one of the operas, suddenly said, " I
was just reading this passaße--` Oh heavens, what do I
hear?"'—a remark which produced roars of laughter in
the court. Counsel having concluded,
The Learned UNDER •SXERIFF placed the case before
the jury with his accustomed clearness, and they as-
sessed the damages at the full amount claimed-1951. ls.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 18.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GouLnuaN.)
RE TAYLOR.—BETTING.
The hearing of this case was resumed by adjourn-
ment. The court was again crowded with parties in-
terested in sweeps and betting.
His HONOUR said the point in this case, when raised,
had apparently come on both the learned gentlemen by
surprise; and he wished to know if either of them had
anything to add to what was then urged?
Mr. LAWRANCE referred to the case of " Wareing v.
Smith," a recent one in the Bristol Court, where Mr.
Sergeant Stephens had decided that Smith's certificate
which had been opposed on the ground of gaming, should
be granted. Afterwards he was taken in execution at
the suit of Wareing; he applied for his discharge, on
the ground that he had obtained his certificate. The
matter went before the Court of Qaeen's Bench, where
it was contended that the certificate was void from
gaming; but Mr. Justice Erle held that the certificate
could not be disturbed, the creditor having another
remedy. Upon all the cases cited, he contended that the
offence was onlycomplete by the payment of the sum lost.
Such was clearly the intention of the Legislature, or no
specific sum would have been named.
The CO3IMISSIONER—Then your view is that if a man
loses a bet and honourably pays it, he loses his certifi-
cate; but if he does not pay, he gets his certificate?
Mr. LAWRANCE—Undoubtedly. The law only has
regard to the pecuniary injury to the bankrupt's estate;
were it otherwise, the words of the Act would have been
directed against making a wager.
The COMMISSIONER—You must observe that the as-
signees might recover the money back, if any wager had
been paid.
Mr. LAWRANCE, at great length, recapitulated the ar-
guments he had urged at the previous sitting..
Mr. STURGEON contended that the construction of the
word "lose" ought to follow the usual acceptation as es-
tablished by the code of honour and the rules of the
Jockey Club. The bankrupt law was not merely a dis-
tributive or pecuniary law; it was also a penal law, as
was abundantly evident from numerous clauses.
His Hosroun said the case was one of greatimportance
to the bankrupt as well as the public, for it is highly re-
quisite that commercial people should be guarded against
the effects of practices and pursuits which are quite at
variance with ike business of a trader, and are extremely
perilous to those who engage in them. The question
arose upon the interpretation which was to be put to the
words of the last Act on the subject-5 and 6 Victoria,
c. 122, section 38. That section provides that no bank-
rupt shall be entitled to his certificate, and if any such
certificate be obtained, it shall be void, if such bankrupt
shall have lost by any sort of gaming or wagering in one
day 201., or within one year next preceding his bank-
ruptcy 2001. It is always useful in such inquiries as the
present, where the meaning of the particular words of an
Act of Parliament is sought, to see what former Acts of
Parliament on the same subject have stated. The words I
have just quoted are a literal transcript from the 6th
George IV., chap. 16, sec. 130, which has the follow-
ing:—" And be it enacted, that no bankrupt shall be
entitled to his certificate, and that any certificate, if
obtained, shall be void, if such bankrupt shall have lost
by any sort of gaming or wagering in one day 20/." &c.
Now, these words were meant to carry out the provisions
contained in the old Act sth George 11., chap. 30, sec.
12, which says, "or who hath or shall have lost in any
one day the sum or value of Si., or, in the whole, the
sum or value of 1001. within the space of twelve months
peat preceding his, her, or their becoming bankrupt
in playing at or with cards, dice-tables, tennis, bowls,
billiards, shovelboard, or in or by cock fighting, horse
races, dog matches, or foot races, or other pastimes,
game, or games whatsoever, or in or by bearing
a share or part in the stakes, wagers, or adventures,
or in or by betting on the sides or hands of such as do
or shall play, act, ride, or run as aforesaid," &c. But
the statute of 5 George IV., instead of leaving the sum
at SZ, raised it to 20L, and, instead of repeating the
words which I have read, uses these, " by any sort of
gaming or wagering." I now come to the definition of
the word " lost." Mr. Lawrance contended that the
statute must mean an actual pecuniary loss or legal liabi-
lity to lose it, that the wager could be recovered against
him in a suit. Now, it is impossible the Legislature
could have contemplated that, for at the time when the
6th George IV. passed, as well as at the period of the
passing of the sth and 6th Victoria, it is quite plain that
all wagers above 10/. were illegal. By the 9th of Anne,
c. 14, all persons who lost more than 10/. upon any game
or wager might, if they had paid such wager, sue for
and recover such money from the party who had re-
ceived it; thus clearly showing that such wegers or bets
were illegal, arid that it was the desire of the Legisla-
ture to put a stop to wagering above the amount name t.
By the Bth and 9th Victoria, c. 109, sec. 18, the law in
this respect has been put upon a more equitable footing,
because; that Act provides that contracts or agreements,
whether by parole or in writing, by way of gaming cr
wagering, shall be null and void, and thct no suit shall
be brought or maintained in any court of law or equity
for recovering any sum of money alleged to be won
up; :n any wager, &e. Therefore, it is plain, that when
the Acts recited, viz., 5 and 6 Victoria and 6 George
IV., were passed, the bets were void; and there was a