The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-13 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,
.MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 13, 'B5B.

the Newmarket rules, and, that being so, Mr. Parr
was entitled to the stakes. The plaintiff, however,
would in the first place show that when the race
was subscribed for in 1855 there was no notice in
the Racing Calendar—which might be termed the
" Turf Coke upon Lyttelton"—(a laugh)—that it
was to beregulated by the rules of theNewmarket,
Doncaster, or any other course. Therefore, one of
the first points which he was there to contend for
was, that, at the time of the making of the con-
tract, no such rules applied. But even supposing
that the rules of Newmarket did not apply to Cat-
terick in 1858, there was a ready answer to that
objection, for, by the 27th rule of the Jockey Club,
they were bound to give notice of Edwards being a
defaulter on or before the evening of the day pre-
ceding the race. Now, the plaintiff's agent had not
received notice of Edwards having been a de-
faulter until the morning of the race, therefore,
upon that point the defendant was completely out
of court. And the rule was so entered that the party
whose horse was objected to might have sufficient
time allowed him to pay up the forfeits. But it was
further contended for on the part of the plaintiff,
that at Catterick the decision of the stewards was
final in all cases. At the last races Lord Zetland,
Mr. Merry, and Capt. Dawson were the stewards,
and it was previously announced in the Sheet Ca-
lendar, by the clerk of the course, that the rules of
Newmarket, York, and Doncaster would be strictly
adhered to on that occasion. Now, by the rule of
the Calendar, it was laid down that all disputes
were to be settled by the stewards, and that all such
decisions were to be final, and not subject to appeals
to a court of law. Well, after the race of 1858, Mr.
Robinson renewed the objection made previously
by the owner of Meteor, so the stewards undertook
to settle the question at the Newmarket Spring
Meeting. Only two of the stewards, however,
attended the meeting, namely, the Earl of Zetland
and Mr. Merry, but they signed this decision :
" Having taken into consideration the circum-
stances of this disputed case, we are of opinion that,
according to the strict letter of the law as it then
stood, no objection having been made to the starting
of Kelpie. by ten o'clock on the night preceding the
horse had a right to start, and its owner to receive
the stakes. Had the objection been made at the
proper time the owner of the horse would have had
an opportunity of paying up the forfeits, and
thereby remove the objection. We are of opinion
that Mr. Parr is entitled to the stakes, but that he
ought to pay up the forfeits which are due upon the
horse. (Signed) Zetland and J. Merry." It was
only necessary for him (Mr. James) to add that
whether a dispute was settled at Newmarket, or on
the particular course where it arose, the rule was
that the decision of the stewards present—no
matter how few or how many that was—should be
binding. And so it constantly happened that dis-
putes on race courses were adjusted by the ruling
of a single steward.
The first witness called was
Edward Foster (examined by Mr. Hawkins)—
____ _ . .

ride for Mr. Parr. I rode Kelpie on the 7th of
April at Catterick bridge-races, for the Ninth
Easby Triennial Produce Stakes. • Four or five
horses ran, and Kelpie won. -His number was put
up first by the judge.
Cross-examined—Mr. Ro.binson's Pelissier came
in second.

Edward Kellow—l am training groom to Mr.
Parr. I took down Kelpie by rail to Catterick-
bridge races. The races commenced on the
Wednesday, and I Fot there on Monday night
at 11 'o'clock. Catterick-bridge is a village, and
there were two days' races. I gave the horse
a gallop on the Tuesday. I got no notice
whatever about the horse until I took him to
the course, about an hour before the saddling.
I first heard of an objection against the horse as
I was weighing Foster, the jockey; that was about
three-quarters of an hour before the start. The
objection caused delay. It was Mr. Johnson, the
judge, who announced it to me. Mr. Johnson said
it was objected to Kelpie that Mr. Edwards was a
defaulter for £llO, I said I knew nothing about
that, neither did Mr. Parr. I then went before
Mr. Jaques, who was acting for Lord Zetland, and
to whom I was referred. I told him that I brought
the horse there, and I should run him. I had no
time whatever to make inquiries into the matter

before starting. Kelpie alsoran for the same stakes
in 1857, and whilst Mr. Parr was his owner. No
objection was made to him then. I was with Mr.
Parr when the horse was brought from Count
Batthyani's and put into training.
Cross-examined--My master is here. I was not
at Catterick in 1857. Meteor won the stakes that
year, and Kelpie was third. I have been with Mr.
Parr for six years. Mr. Weatherby is the keeper
of the match-book at Newmarket. He was not at
Catterick.
Mr. Thomas Parr, the plaintiff, examined—

have been owner of racehorses for some years. I
bought Kelpie of Count Batthyani in 1856. The
horse was entered in 1858 for the Ninth Easby
Triennial PrOduce Stakes. I bought the horse with
all his.engagements. He run in 1857, which was
the first of the three years. I heard of no objection
against the horse that year. I sent him to Cat-
terick again this year. I was not present either
year. I had no knowledge until the morning of
he race of Mr. Edwards being a defaulter, although
heard by telegraph the same evening that my
horse had been objected to. There were thre e
stewards at the Catterick races—Lord Zetland, Mr.
Merry, and Captain Lawson. It constantly hap-
pens that all the stewards do not attend a race.
According to ordinary usage the stewards present
decide as to any objection that may be raised. The
settlement of a dispute is frequently adjourned over
to another meeting. In the event of a postpone-
ment the majority of the stewards present always
decide the question at issue. The usage of the turf
is that the majority of those present should decide ;
the whole need not be present. I have known that '
rule acted on. I have had a great deal of experi-
ence in turf matters.
Cross-examined—l can't recollect at this moment
any one case in which that rule was acted on. I
didn't know Edwards. I never knew of the name
of Edward Brockett until the day after the race.
It is not unusual for persons under fictitious names
to enter horses. I never paid forfeits for Edwards
in order to enable Kelpie to run. I did not run a
horse for the Stockbridge Derby in 1856. I had a
horse called Coroner. He won the Stockbridge
Derby in 1856, but I had got rid of him a year pre-
viously. I had a horse called Sir Colin. He ran
for this race at Catterick in 1857. I believe there
were some forfeits in that race. Sir Colin won it.
I can't say whether a horse called Ondine paid for-
feit. I subscribe to Weatherby's Sheet Calendar.
That is a forfeit list published once a year., I was
never aware that there are frequent entries of for-
feits due from Edwards in that list. I mad, the dis-
covery the day after my horse was objected to at ,
Catterick. Coroner ran in my Flame at Stockbridge,
but he was not my property. A horse entered in ,
Edwards's name ran third for that race.
Re-examined—There arc a great many Edwardscs
on the turf ; amongst others Lord E. Russell runs
under that name. T didn't know that Kelpie had
been nominated by Edwards for the race at Catte-
rick. I thought the horse was entered in Mr. Ped-
ley's name, as for all his other engagements he was.
The Racing-sheet Calendar was then put in, con-
taining the judgement of the stewards at New-
market.

That closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Knowles then addressed the jury for the dc•
fondant; and called

Mr. T. Winteringham, who said ,1 am the de.
fendant in this case, and the proprietor of the Spa
Hotel at Croft, in Yorkshire. I have a stud farm
adjoining. I was clerk of the course and stake-
holder at Catterick races in 1858. I was first clerk
of the course and stakeholder in 1853. In 1854 I
had an advertisement put into the Sheet Calendar
with reference to the stakes called the Ninth Easby
Triennial Produce Stakes. Two mares, the pro-
perty of Mr. Edward Brockett—nawely, Child of
the Mist and Blameless—were entered in the name
of Mr. Edwards for the race. I saw a gentleman
of the name of Grey the day bCfore. Mr.
Grey gave me a printed notice with respect to
Kelpie between 8 and 9 o'clock the right before.
He was a part owner of Meteor, and he said he
thought Meteor hed a good chance of winning the
race again. He said, as to Kelpie, he objected to
his starting, on the ground that the nominator was
in default of £llO for forfeits. Mr. Brockett has
often entered horses under the name of Edwards.
In 1857 I gave Parr notice that Edwards, the nomi-
nator of Ondine, was a defaulter. Before the race
of 1858 was run I had lists published in the Calen-
dar, and issued them to all parts of the country.
In those lists I stated that the rules of Newmarket,
York. and Doncaster, would be strictly adhered to
at Catterick. I sent Mr. Parr, and in fact all rac-
ing men, a list of the horses entered. I went to
Catterick the day before the race, but I returned
home the same evening, and it was then Mr. Grey
called and gave me the notice with respect to Kel-
pie. 1 went back to Catterick in the morning. Mr.
Parr was not there. • Mr. Osborne appeared for
Parr—at least he told me so.

Mr. James objected to such evidence. There was
no proof whatever that Osborne had been so com-
missioned.
Witness—Kellow was with the horse. Mr.
Robinson told me he should claim the stakes if
Kelpie won, upon Grey's objection. That objection
was _renewed in the morning by Robinson. I com-
municated that to Osborne.

Mr. John Lawson, of Brough Hall—l am the son
of Sir William Lawson. I acted as steward with
Mr. Merry and Lord Zetland at the last Catterick
races. I attended, and the others did not. I was
made aware of the objection to Kelpie within the
half hour before the start. I permitted the start

under protest. After the race the matter was brought
to me. I formed an opinion, but gave no decision. I
wrote to Lord Zetland, and said I should prefer to
have it decided at a future period. I afterwards met
Lord Zetland and Mr. Merry at the York meeting
—that was ten days later. I talked the matter
over with them. We came to no decision. On
separating, Lord Zetland said he should like us to
meet again and decide the matter. I separated in
the belief we should meet again. I didn't hear
anything of the matter again until I got a paper
from Mr. Weatherby. (The decision quoted by Mr.
James was here handed to witness.) I received a
copy of this, and I put my endorsement upon it.
This is not the whole of the document I sent back
to Mr. Weatherby. On the paper sent to me there
was sufficient room to allow of my writing under-
neath. I didn't concur in this decision. On the
left hand corner I wrote, Ido not concur in this
opinion. John Lawson." I then sent it back to
Mr. Weatherby.
By Mr. James—The decision contained in this
document is a judgment of the stewards, dissente
Capt. Lawson.
Witness—l certainly differed in opinion from the
other stewards. lam not a racing man, but then
I can't say I am exactly ignorant of racing matters.
I never was at Newmarket in my life.
By the Judge—l never heard the subject men-
tioned again. My impression was the thing would
go before the Jockey Club.
By Mr. Knowles—The other stewards never
wrote to me or I to them.

Mr. Weatherby—l am publisher of the Sheet
Racing Calendar and of the forfeit list. The for-
feit list is published only once a year. Lord Zet-
land wrote the page produced at my office. After
it was written. I sent it to Mr. Merry in Scot-
land. Mr. Merry sent it back, and I then sent it to
Captain Lawson, but I am not aware whether it was
the original or a copy. lam not certain whether I
did not say " we" are of opinion in the copy. I
found Capt. Lawson's letter, but I scarcely think
he retained a copy of it. May be he did.
Cross-examined--I have some experience respect-
ing the usage as to stewards deciding matters. I
have been 32 years keeper of the match-book at
Newmarket, and secretary to the Jockey Club.
Country stewards sometimes refer to the stewards
of the Jockey Club at Newmarket. At Newniarket
two out of three stewards can decide. At country
races a majority of the stewards decide. If there
is only one steward present, and if it is a little
matter, he would decide on the spot, but if not he
would consult his colleagues and send a decision.
In this case the usage would be that the opinions of
Lord Zetland and Mr. Merry, when they met,
should be decisive. I was not present at York
when the matter was discussed.
That closed the evidence.
The learned judge then said that he should direct
the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff for £ll2,
with leave to the defendant to enter a verdict for
him or a nonsuit, on the ground that no decision
had been come to by the stewards, or that the deci-
sion come to had not been signed by two authori-
ties at the same time.

Mr. James would direot his lordship's attention to
the circumstance that at the time Kelpie was no-
minated—that was before he was foaled—there was
no restriction as to the payment of forfeits, or as to
the contracting parties being bound by the New-
market rules. _

Mr. Weatherby having been recalled, said that
the Newmarket rules did not apply to the Catterick
races in 11354, the period of Kelpie's nomination.
The universal usage at races was that the decision
of the stewards should be final. _ _ _

The jury then found for the plaintiff, in accord.
ance with the judge's decision.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—DEC. 11.
Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before the
Lord Chief Justice and a Common Jury.)

LAWRENCE V. CRIDLAND.-ACCIDENT.-STRANGE
CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE.
___ _

This was an action to recover damages for inju-
ries sustained by the plaintiff through falling over
a cellar flap. The case was laid before a jury on the
13th Nov. last, but they were unable to agree to a
verdict, and were ultimately discharged without
doing so.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas and Mr. Griffiths appeared
for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Collier for the defendant.
The plaintiff was a journeyman shoemaker, and
the defendant was a publican in Shoe-lane, Fleet-
street. About noon on the 30th April last the
plaintiff was going along Shoe-lane towards Fleet-
street, having in his hand some articles which ho
had purchased for use in his trade. He caught his
foot against some obstruction and fell and fractured
his knee-cap so badly, that after a good deal of
suffering it seemed there was no hope of a cure.
He still walked with a crutch, and the injrued leg
was apparently withering away, it being already
considerably less than, the sound one. These facts
were agreed- to on both sides, but about almost

every other fact the evidence was very conflicting.
The case was partly heard yesterday, and his lord-
ship and several of the jurymen availed themselves
of the break in the case to go and inspect the place.
For the plaintiff it was sworn that what caused
him to fall was that he caught his foot under an
iron bar fastened on the frame of the defendant's
cellar-flap to prevent the erearing of the wood by
the chains used in lowering beer into the cellar.
This bar was placed parallel to the kerb, and the
end of it next Holborn had sprung up an inch or
an inch and a half, in consequence of the rail or
screw having come out or worn away. A good
deal of evidence was produced to prove that the
bar was sprung on the 30th April, and that it had
been sprung for a week or two before that time;
that when the plaintiff's wife called on the defend-
ant shortly after the accident and told him the
cause of it, he said that he had made it all right;
inasmuch as he had since nailed down the bar.
On the other hand there was positive evidence
that the plaintiff had not stumbled over the bar,
but had caught his foot a yard or two before he got
to it; and it was believed by several witnesses, and
sworn to positively by one, that he had stumbled
over the grating at the barber's shop next door.
As to the state of the bar, the evidence was that
though it had sprung a little in the middle from a
nail being out, it had never sprung at either end,
that when it was mad,: new, a screw was put in at
each end and a nail in the middle; that neither of
those screws had ever been out, and that they were
both in now.

Several of the jury expressed doubt about this
part of the evidence, sayingthat they believed they
were nails and not screws in the ends of the bar.
The Lord Chief Justice agreed with them, and at
the request of the jury the bar with the piece of the
frame to which it was attached was taken up under
the superintendence of Mr. Fowler, a surveyor, and
brought into court. A carpenter then set the matter
at rest, for when drawn it turned out that the bar
was fastened by three nails only, there being no
' screws. The defendant had admitted in his evidence
that since the trial he, supposing the matter at an
end, had driven a nail in the middle of the bar.
This nail now turned out to be similar to the one
which fastened tit) Holborn end of the bar, while
the one which fastened the Fleet-street end was a
thinner and very different nail.
Mr. Walker, one of the defendant's witnesses,
was recalled and examined by his lordship. He
said that 18 months ago he had done the carpenter's
work when extensive alterations were made in the
defendant's house, and, among other things, had
made this cellar flap. He said he believed his men
had put a screw at each end. Screws were men-
tioned in the specification.
Mr. Cridland, the defendant, was also examined.
He repeated that he had never driven a nail in the
bar except the one in the middle. He did not know
positively where he got that nail. It might have
been one left by Mr. Walker's men. He had
thought until now that the ends of the bar were
fastened by screws.
Mr. Serjeant Thomas, at the conclusion of the
defendant's case, tendered I boy as a witness to
show that he had seen the defendant a day or two
after the accident nail down the end of the bar.
The learned counsel stated that this boy had been
discovered since the plaintiff's case had been con-
cluded.

Mr. Collier, however, submitted that it would be
unfair to him that such evidence should be received
after his case had closed.

His Lordship refused to receive the evidence, and
subsequently, in summing up, he left it to the jury
to consider whether the bar was at the time of the
accident in the dangerous condition alleged by the
plaintiff; and if so, was that bar the cause of the
accident.

The jury, after an hour's consideration, found for
the defendant, adding, however, " at the same time
the jury would express that they are very dissatis-
fied with the evidence of the defendant.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before a Special Jury.)
KEATS V. KEATS AND MONTEZUMA.
_ _ _

Mr. Phinn, Q.C., Dr. Addams, Q.C., and Mr.
Giffard were counsel for the petitioner; Dr. Philli-
more, Q.C., and Mr. Thring for the respondent ;
and Mr. Murphy for the co-respondent.
The petition, presented by Mr. John Keats, was
for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground of
adultery. The respondents, Mrs. E. E. Keats and
Don Pedro de Montezuma, pleaded a denial of the
adultery, and the- wife further pleaded that since
the filing of her answer the adultery, if committed,
had been condoned. The petition also contained a
prayer for damages from the co-respondent.
The petitioner is the head of the well-known firm
of Fortnum and Mason, in Piccadilly, and in 1856
filled the office of Sheriff o_ f London. In 1854 he
_
was a widower with one son and two daughters
•