The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-21 00:00:00

r will be satisfactory." I would not accept the offer, my
writ being issued for 3,1501. as the price of the horse, and
I had not instructions to take less. The defendant at-
tached to his proposition a condition that Mr. Kennedy
should retract a letter he bad written to Bell's Life
newspaper, which he said had got him in disgrace with
the Jockey Club.
This witness was cross-examined at some length as to
' the nature of some money transactions between him and
the plaintiff, and the brother of Captain Alleyne, but
they did not appear to have any reference to the matter
in issue, and it will, therefore, be unnecessary to detail
the particulars.
Inspector Otway said, he was on duty at Hampton
races, and heard the dispute about the horse, and heard
Mr. Newton claim him, and say that ho had been ob-
tained from the stables by false pretences; and Mr. Clark
replied, that he had bought the horse and paid for it.
There was a good deal of confusion, and Mr. Newton
was shoved away from the horse, and I told him I did
not think it was a case in which I could interfere, and
advised him to apply to the Stewards, and the parties
went to them. During the conversation I heard some-
thing about 850/. as the price of the horse.
Cross-examined—l did not hear Mr. Clark say any-
thing about a bill of exchange.
Mr. Isaac Day said—l am a trainer of race-horses,
and know Sir Tatton Sykes. I bought him in 1847 of
William Scott for the brother of Captain Alleyne, and
gave three thousand guineas for him. I remember the
disturbance at Hampton races, and the defendant told
me afterwards that he had given 850/. for the horse to
Mr. Kennedy. It was difficult to get at the value of a
race-horse, but Sir Tatton was a very fine horse, and I
should say, as a stud horse, would be worth 1,5001.
Cross-examined—When I bought him his character
stood very high. He ran two or three times while he
was in my charge, and lost on every occasion. I believe
he was sold to the plaintiff at Goodwood races, 1847.
He has never won a race since.
Mr. William Scott, the jockey, said—l bought Sir
Tatton Sykes while he was a yearling. He is now five
years old. I afterwards sold him, through Mr. Day, to
Mr. Alleyne, for three thousand guineas. The money
was paid all "clean and nice."—(A laugh.)
The CHIEF BARON—What do you meals by being paid
all clean and nice ? Witness—l mean, my Lord, there
was no bill, or anything of that sort.
The CHIEF BARON—Then you don't mean the money
was paid H new notes, or gold ? I suppose very dirty
notes you would consider to be a very clean, nice pay-
ment 2—(A laugh.) Witness—Exactly, my Lord.
Sergeant SuEs---What would you say was the value
of the horse at this time ? Witness—l consider him
worth 2,000/. as a stud horse. He is no good as a race-
horse, but he is worth that sum for the stud.
Mr. CHAMBERS—WouId you give 2,000 guineas for
him ? Witness—Oh ! that is quite another question.—
(A laugh.) I don't keep race-horses. C
Mr. HA.MBEBS—CouId you get 2,000/. for him ?
Witness—ldon't know of a customer, but a horse that had
won the Leger, the 2,000 guineas, and who was second
for the Derby must always fetch a good deal of money.
Lanercost was sold for 3,000/., and he did not run so many
races. Sir Tattoo's legs are nearly gone, and he is not
fit to run as a race-horse.
Mr. CHAMBERS—You have talked about Lanercost.
Do you remember Pyrrhus the First? Did not he win
the Derby? Winess—He scrambled through it after
getting a 70 yards' start.—(A laugh).
Mr. Cus.sinEas—Oh, he scrambled through it, did he?
—(Renewed laughter.) After this scramble was not be
sold for 700/.? Witness—l have heard so.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. CHAMBERS then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant, and be commenced by stating that very few per-
sons were acquainted with the secrets of the turf, or the
nature of many of the transactions that took
place there between parties connected with it, but he
said he should be able to satisfy them of the real
character of this proceeding, and they would; see
that there was no ground for the present action.
The claim for 3,150/., in the first place, was perfectly rid-
culous, because it was quite clear, from the plaintiff's
evidence, that the only sum in question was 8501.; and
he must observe, that if young men chose to be silly
enough to go upon the turf, as it was termed, and mix
with older and more experienced persons, they could
hardly expect to do so without burning their fingers.
The jury would see that the real point in dispute between
the parties was whether the horse had been sold or not;
and it would be important for them to remember in the
outset that there was a negotiation between them at
Windsor, for the sale and purchase, and that a bill-

stamp was actually produced; and although, from some
reason or other, the negotiation was broken off, yet it
was proved that an arrangement was made that they
should meet the next or some future day to have some
further talk on the subject. He should show them that
they did meet on the Bth June, and that it was arranged
that the defendant should give a bill for 1,1001., at twelve
months' date, for the horse, and tthe sum of 850/. arose

in this way. Mr. Kennedy was want of ready
money, and it was arranged that the bill was to be
discounted, and the sum in question was expected to be
the result after the discount had been deducted; but he
should show that, at all events, the plaintiff was willing
to part with his horse for that sum, and he should prove
that Mr. Kennedy gave his trainer, John Scott, autho-
rity to deliver the horse to the defendant. lie did not
impute bad faith to the plaintiff in this transaction, but
he believed that he was no real party to the present
action, and that it was only brought by parties con-
nected with him for their own purposes. The acceptance
was got ready, but Scott declined to receive it, but
having the plaintiff's authority, he had no difficulty in
giving the horse up to the defendant's trainer. The
Learned Counsel then read a letter, which he said was
received by the defendant from Mr. Kennedy, on the
13th of June, two days after the horse had been taken
away. It was to the effect, that he was still of the
same mind with regard to disposing of Sir Tatton
Sykes, but that the proposition of the bill for
1,1001. for him could not be entertained unless Mr.
Clark could get it discounted without having his (Ken-
nedy's) name upon it, and that it realised 850/. ready
money, or he offered to take 7501. in ready money, and
the defendant's bill at four months for 100/. The letter
contained two other propositions, one of 750/. down with
a promise of 150/, more upon his winning the first han-
dicap race in which he was entered; or a net sun of
8501.; and it concluded by the plaintiff expressing an
opinion that the race.at Ascot could not have been Sir
Tattoo's true running, and stating that if none of his
propositions were agreed to, he should place the horse
in the care of another trainer and give him a trial, and
he said he had no doubt he should eventually make those
persons who were continually " peppering" the horse,
pay dearly for their temerity. The letter concluded by
requesting an immediate answer. The Learned Coun-
sel went on to say that he could not understand what
was the real object of this letter, for at the time the sale
had been concluded, and the animal was actually re-
moved. He then referred to the other circumstances of
the case, and said that it was a most improper proceed-
ing to make the charge against the defendant on a pub-
lic race-course, of having fraudulently obtained posses-
sion of the horse, and it was not at all surprising that he
evinced some warmth on the occasion. He concluded by
saying that the only question for the jury was whether
there bad been a sale or not, and when they had heard
the evidence he should adduce, he was of opinion they
would think the defendant was entitled to a verdict.
Mr. T. Fisk said, I know the plaintiff and the de-
fendant. I saw them together at Ascot on the Bth of
June. This was after the meeting at Windsor. There
was a discussion about the sale of Sir Tatton, and I heard
the defendant ask if Mr. Kennedy would take his bill at
twelve months for 1,1001., and give a guarantee of the
horso's soundness. Mr. Kennedy said he would, and
agreed to meet the defendant on the following day to
receive the bill, and hand over the warranty of soundness
to the defendant.

Qeorge Dockeray said, I am a trainer of race-horses,
and keep stables at Epsom, and train for the defendant.
While I was at Ascot races, Mr. Clark came to me and
said, in the presence of Mr. Kennedy, that ho had bought
Sir Tatton Sykes. I replied, " What the devil did
you buy such a ' rip as that for, with no legs?"
The defendant said he was to give a bill at twelve
months' date for 1,1001. for the horse, and I said
ho must be mad to give so much money for a horse
when he was good for nothing and had no legs.
Mr. Clark replied, that he was warranted sound,
and I said his legs looked very suspicious, and his joints
were much enlarged. Mr. Kennedy then said, " Doc -
keray, the horse is sound, and I warrant him sound." A
bill of exchange for 1,1001. was shortly afterwards given
to me for Mr. Kennedy, but I could not find him to give
it him, and on the following Sunday, July 11, I fetched
the horse away from John Scott's stables. I have had
him ever since, and I would no: give 5001. for him. I
wish he was out of my stable. He was beaten by a
very bad horse at Hampton, and if he could not win
such a thing as that he was no good at all as a race horse.
Mr. J. Scott said, I am a trainer of race horses, and
Sir Tatton was at my stable in Juue. At that time he
belonged to the plaintiff. I saw Mr. Kennedy and Mr.
Clark on the Bth June at Ascot, and the former said he
had sold the horse to Mr. Clark for 1,1001. upon his
bill. On the following Sunday Dockoray came and
fetched the horse away. I have told Mr. Kennedy that
the horse was quite useless to him in his racing stud,
but that he might get a thousand pounds for him as a
stud horse. Foreigners would sometimes give large
sums for such horses, but the foreign trade was now
quite stopped, and there was no demand for horses to
go abroad.
Sergeant SHEE then replied, and urged that the de-
fence which had been set up was not only inconsistent
in itself but inconsistent with justice. It was purely
fictional. The defendant did not deny that he had the
horse, and he asked the jury whether it was likely that
a valuable animal should be given up in the manner re-
presented. The letter of the plaintiff that had been pro-
duced, however, showed clearly that he never intended
to give up the horse until he received the 8501., and the
defendant himself' admitted that he would be called upon
to pay that sum. At present, however, the plaintiff
had neither horse, bill, nor money, and it appeared to
be the object of the defendant to keep the horse, and to
use it as his own, and to evade, if ho could, paying for it.
The CHIEF BARON, in summing up, said it appeared
to him that the only question for the jury was, whether
the plaintiff consented to the removal of his horse or not.
He did not think there was any ground for imputing any
fraudulent intention to the defendant in removing the
horse, but if he did so under a mistaken impression as
to the effect of the arrangement between him and the
plaintiff, the latter would be entitled to recover in this

action.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages 850/.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Liverpool, Aug. 18.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CRESWELL.)
The following prisoners, tried yesterday for offences
relating to coin, were this morning sentenced:—
Mary Mitchell and Alice Rourke to be transported
for seven years.
John Holden, the elder, to be imprisoned, with hard
labour, eighteon months.