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

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 13, 858.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Dec. 11.

COURT OF QUEEN'S. BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord
Campbell and a Special Jury.)

VEATHERLEY V. THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT-DUKE
OF BEAUFORT V. WEATHERLEY-AN EPISODE ON

THE TURF.
'These were cross actions, which by an arrange-
ment between the parties, were tried together.
Mr. Lush and Mr. Kerr were for Mr. Weather-
ley ; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. G. Somerset
represented the Duke of Beaufort.
The first action was brought by Thomas White
Weatherley against Henry Charles Fitzroy Somer-
set, Duke of Beaufort, for assault.
The defendant pleaded not guilty ; and, secondly,
that he committed the assault in self-defence, the
plaintiff having first assaulted him.
The second action was brought by the duke
against Mr. Weatherley for assault and false im-
prisonment. The defendant pleaded not guilty. ;
that what he did was in his own defence ; that it
was in consequence of the carelessness and improper
conduct of the plaintiff; and that it was in order
to keep the peace.
Mr. Lush, in opening the case, said that both
actions were brought in respect of a transaction
which took place on the Brighton race-course in
August last. It appeared that a part of the ground
was inclosed by ropes for the protection of pedes-
trians and persons on horseback and in carriages,
and a fee charged for admission. Within this in-
closure the Duke of Beaufort, who had come to the
races in a carriage with a party of friends, was
indulging in the amusement of throwing bludgeons
at a black doll with a tobacco-pipe in its mouth,
and the merit of which consisted in knocking out
the pipe without touching the figure. Mr.
Weatherley was riding a horse in this in-
closure at a walking pace, and it happened
that the duke, while taking an aim, acciden-
tally struck the shoulder of the animal and
made him start off at a quicker pace. The
duke, who was annoyed at being deprived of
his aim, threw three sticks which he had in
his hand very violently, one after the other, at
Mr. Weatherley ; and, on the latter coming back
to ask for an explanation, the duketook him by the
leg and threw him over the horse on to the ground.
It was for the injuries sustained by that treatment
that Mr. Weatherley now sought to recover damages
at the hands of the4m7.
The following evidence was then adduced :
Mr. T. W. Weatherley—l am the plaintiff in the
first action, and the defendant in the second. I
attended the Brighton races in Aug. last. I was
riding a horse in the enclosed part of the course. I
was walking it. After I had been in the enclosure
a short time I discovered that one of the horse's
shoes was loose. I left the course for the purpose
of having it fixed. I returned in about an hour still
on horseback. I walked gently up the course into
the enclosure. I had not proceeded far before I saw
a part of the enclosure blocked up. There was a
person throwing at a black doll with lirge sticks,
which was the cause of the crowd. I saw a gap
between that gentleman (whom I afterwards found
to be the Duke of Beaufort) and the crowd who
were gathered round him in a circle. I attempted
to walk the horse through the gap, and at the same
moment the duke was in the act of making aim at
the doll. In so doing his shoulder came against my
horse's near shoulder. This caused. the horse to go
a few paces. The duke exclaimed, " your eyes,
where are you cantering to ?" I said, "I am not
cantering," but he did not hear that—at least I think
so. He then threw the stick which he was before
about to throw at the doll, at me, and it struck me
in the loins. I was about five or ten feet only from
the doll at the time. The stick was about 18 inches
long and two inches in diameter. It was the kind
of stick usually employed in the game. I said, ad-
dressing the duke, "It is not my fault." He then
threw another stick of the same size at my head
with greater violence. I put up my arm to ward off
the blow, and received a very severe blow on it.
He then picked up another of the same description,
and aimed it violently at the near side of my horse.
That caused the horse to be very restive. I then
said, as before, that it was not my fault, and was
about to explain the cause of the occurrence, when
the duke came to my near side, took my left foot in
his hand, and tried to take it from the stirrup,
which I prevented him doing by pointing my toe
downwards. Finding he failed to do this, he pulled
my leg from the horse's side and forced me off on
the off side. I got on my legs and walked round
to the duke, and asked ljiin how he could be guilty
of such an act. He said, " You tailor, you
have no business here ; I suppose you have never
crossed a horse before." I said, "I do not wish to

be insulted as well as ill-used ; you will oblige me
with your name." He said, " I'll see you first."
I then went away and stated the occurrence to a
policeman who was on the race course, not in the
enclosure. The policeman said he had not seen the
assault, and that I had better see his superior

officer. I was then directed to another police-officer
on the course, about a hundred yards off. I believe
he was an inspector. I then stated to him what I
had told the other, and he sent a policeman to
inquire the name and address of the gentleman of
whom I complained. I went with him. The gentle-
man was standing on the top of a carriage. The
policeman touched on the side of the foot, and said,
" Will you step down, please ?" The gentleman
said, " Oh, yes." He then got down, and the police-
man told him that I had been to a superior officer,
and made a complaint, and that he had been sent
to ask his name and address. The gentleman said,
" No, I shall do no such thing." The policeman
then said, " Will you please to walk with me and
see my superior officer ?" He replied, in a quick
manner, " Oh, yes, I'll come with you." We
then went across the course, and met- a police-
officer. lam not sure he was the officer we saw
before. The policeman that went with me then
asked the other if he could tell him where Mr.

Commissioner White was. We were directed up the
course a few yards, and there saw him. The police-
man said to him, " This gentleman has been com-
plaining of being assaulted." Commissioper White
then asked me the circumstances. I related the
whole of what had taken place, and he added,
" You appear to be two gentlemen, you had
better exchange cards." (Laughter.) As soon as
he had said that the gentleman took the Commis-
sioner a little aside and whispered to him. The
Commissioner turned to me and said, " What is
your name ?" I told him, " Weatherley." He said,
" Very well, then that is the Duke of Beaufort."
That ended the matter. I then went into the in-
closure. My anele was very much hurt by hang-
ing in the stirrup. My arm was quite stiff, and I
was unable to use it. I had a terrible pain between
my legs in consequence of their being extended so.
Cross-examined by Mr. M. Chambers—l was
attended by Dr. M'Clure. I called on a doctor to
see what damages were done. I came up to town
the same evening, and I went to Dr. M'Clure for
that purpose. I went to my doctor first, not to my
lawyer. Two or three days afterwards I visited a
lawyer. Dr. M'Clure is not present. He gave
me some medicine and an embrocation. I was not
brought up to any trade or profession. I generally
describe myself as a gentleman. I have done a
little in the veterinary art. I have sometimes de-
scribed myself as a veterinary surgeon. I have
done a little in the veterinary art at Haverstock-
hill. This is about twelvemonths ago. I had stables
there. It was a two-stall stable and coach-house.
I lived in Carlton-street, Carlton road, Kentish-
town. I had a house there. I gave it up 15 or 18
months ago. I have done nothing in the veterinary
art since. The address I gave my solicitor was 6,
Clarence-road, Kentish-town. I had only a bed-
room there, for which I paid ss. a week. I live
there now. I have had it eight months. I sleep
there always, except when I am out of town. I
sometimes visit my friends in the country. I live
on my friends. I am very frequently called White.
A friend writes to me at Kentish-town in that
name. I have other friends who write to me in
the name of Weatherley. The friend who calls
me 'White is a gentleman and does not live on
his friends. I was staying with a friend at
Hove at the time of the Brighton races. He
went on the race.courso with me. He was not
riding by my side when the occurrence took place.
I ride well. I consider myself a good rider. I can
manage a horse admirably. I have never shod
horses, only physicked them, that's all. Where the
occurrence took place people were walking. The
ropes round the enclosure were supported by sticks.
I swear I was not told not to ride in the enclosure.
I don't know the black figure called " Aunt Sally."
(Laughter.) I did not ride through the crowd, but
through the gap which was six feet wide. It was
left for horsemen to pass through. Before I at-
tempted to go through I did not see what the crowd
were looking at. The horse was not running, but
walking. I swear that the gentleman was not forced
forward by my horse running against him, and that
he only saved himself from falling by laying hold
of the splinter bar of a carriage. I did not see him
catch hold of a splinter bar in order to save himself
from falling. My horse did not canter after the
gentleman came against it; it made a kind ofshuffie
off as if half frightened. I had the horse entirely,
undcymy control. I never played at " Aunt Sally,'
nor saw it played before. The stick used was as
large as those used in the game of knocking off
snuff boxes. I had not a hunting whip with me ;
I had what is called a hunting crop. It had the
usual loop on hunting whips for opening gates. I
swear I did not raise my hunting whip to strikethe
duke. I do not remember seeing him put his had OR
the bridle of my horse in order to check it. He did
not make it rear. When he threw me over the
horse I did not come on my legs, but on my back

and sides. I immediately spoke to the duke. It
was the duke who said, " You - tailor, you have
never crossed a horse before." Another gentleman
did not say that one gentleman said, " It serves you
right." I do not know who he was. Three quarters
of an hour after the occurrence I returned to the
duke with a policeman. During that time I was
searching for a policeman on the tour ,c. The duke
said to the policeman 'brought to him, " He (mean-
ing me) knocked me down, and, - to -, a man
has a right to do something then." I asked him for
his card, and he said, " I'll see you - first."
After I left the course I took the horse to Poole's

livery stable. It was not hired, but lent to
me by my friend, to whom it belonged. His
name is 'Watson, and he is a medical gentleman. I
told him what had happened. He did not examine
me, but he said I was strained. Mr. Watson re-
sides on the New Steyne. I dined at Hove, and
came home by the six o'clock train. I took the
second class. _ _ _

yV
Re-examined by Mr. Lush—lt was a very tern-
perate horse. I do not know who the gentleman
was who said " It serves you right," but he was one
of the duke's friends. The space where the occur-
rence happened was enclosed by ropes for carriages
and horses. I paid to go into it.
Edward Charmen examined by Mr. Lush—l re-
side near Brighton. I was on the race course on
the day in question. I was opposite the Duke of
Beaufort, on the outside of the enclosure. I was
watching his play. The duke had had about thirty
throws at " Aunt Sally," when Mr. Weatherley's
horse came up. I was in a carriage and could see
well. I never saw Mr. Wcatherlev before. The
first thing I saw was the gentleman's play, which
I thought exceedingly good. I afterwards learned
he was the duke. There were many persons on
horseback in the enclosure. There were also many
young ladies on horseback riding to and fro. Mr.
Weatherley was riding his horse as quietly as any
gentleman could. The duke was throwing. I did
not see whether he touched the horse or not, but
the horse made a swerve, turning his hind parts to-
wards the duke, and the duke struck the horse
across the buttocks with a stick. The horse capered
about a little, and another stick, thrown by the
duke, struck Mr. Weatherley's back. He aimed
the stick at him. Mr. Weatherley turned round
to see what had struck him, and seeing another
stick coming he put up his arm to ward off the
blow. The horse then got in advance a few yards.
The duke went to Mr. Weatherley and took hold of
his leg and tried to unhorse him. He next laid
hold of his foot and turned him over on the other
side. I heard some language like " tailor,"
or " Tour eyes," but I did not take notice of
it That is all I saw.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers—l gave Mr.
Weatherley my name on the course shortly after-
wards. lam a tailor. (Laughter.) The duke
played exceedingly well. Mr. Weatherley had a
whip or stick in his hand.
Re-examined by Mr. Lush—l am in business as
a tailor on my own account, at Ditching, near
Brighton.
By the jury—The stick produced is a good deal
smaller than those with which the duke was
playing.
Mrs. Sarah Harmer—l am a widow, living at
Burgess-hill, near Brighton. I was in a carriage
with Mr. Charmen on the Brighton race-course. I

saw the gentleman described as the Duke of Beau-
fort playing. I saw the horse pass, and I saw the
gentleman strike it, and then the horse swerved
round, and the gentleman tried to unhorse the
rider, who was Mr. Weatherley. Mr. Weatherley
was not unhorsed—only.thrown on one side.
Mr. Charles Stonor, innkeeper, said—l was in
the box of the carriage in which the last witness
was. I saw the gentleman playing at " Aunt
Sally," and was very much amused. I thought he
played very nicely. I saw Mr. Weatherley come
along the course at a good pace. The horse was
struck by a stick, and it plunged round towards the
duke. The duke then threw a stick sharply at Mr.
Weatherley, and it struck him on some part of his
back. He threw another immediately afterwards.
Mr. Weatherley saw it coming and held up his
arm, which it struck. The duke appeared to aim
it at his head. I afterwards saw the duke toss Mr.
Weatherley off the horse. I heard some expression
addressed to Mr. Weatherley, but not by the duke.
Cross-examined—l did not see the duke forced
forward by the horse.
Henry Godsall, the driver of a carriage on the
course—l saw the duke shying at " Aunt Sally,"
and I thought he was a right good hand at knock-
ing the pipe oat of her mouth. I saw him throw
three sticks at Mr. Weatherley. Two hit him and
one missed. The duke then tried to unhorse him.
The sticks were about the thickness of a stable
broomstick. _ _ _

Other similar evidence having been given,
Mr. Geor,geWhite was examined—l am the chief
constable of police at Brighton. I remember
the Duke of Beaufort and Mr. Weatherley coming
up to me on the Brighton race course. Mr.
Weatherley said he had been assaulted, and wanted
the gentleman's name. I said "As you are both
gentlemen I should think you should both exchange
names." Some gentlemen with the duke said, "Thus
is the Duke of Beaufort." I then turned round to
Mr. Weatherley and said, " That's the Duke of
Beaufort, and he is staying, I believe, at the
Albion." They then left me. Ido not recollect
whether Mr. Weatherley gave his name. I did
not pay much attention, not having seen the as-
sault. I did not consider it a matter for my inter-
ference. There was no charge made. I did not
see any policeman in the matter.
Cross-examined—There might have been a police-
man with them, but I do not recollect now.
Mr. M. Chambers then addressed the jury on tke
part of the Duke of Beaufort, characterising the
first action as only an attempt to extort money
from his client, who, he contended, was not the
original aggressor.
Lord Campbell having summed up, and after the
jury had deliberated a few minutes in the box,
A juryman said they had some doubt whether
Mr. Weatherley's horse running against the Duke
of Beaufort was an assault. . _ _

Lord Campbell—lt must be considered an assault;
but if his playing at " Aunt Sally" in the enclosure
contributed to the assault you ought to find a ver-
dict for the defendant. In the first action, however,
you have merely to consider the damages.
The jury then, in the first action, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, Mr. Weatherley, with £lOO
damages ; and in the second a verdict for the
plaintiff, the Duke of Beaufort, with one farthing
damages.
Lord Campbell said he would certify for a spe-
cial jury, but for nothing else.
A Juror—Are you, my lord, satisfied with the
verdict ?
Lord Campbell—l think, gentlemen, it is a very
good verdict.

the Newmarket rules, and, that "keing 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 the Newmarket,
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 Cattcrick 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
matteehow 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)—l
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. Robinson'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 got 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 ma him. I had no
time whatever to make inquiries into the matter
before starting. Kelpie also ran 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
Pear, and Kelpie was third. I have been with Mr.
arr 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—l
have been owner of racehorses for some years. I
bought Kelpie of Count Batthyani in 1856. The
horse was entered in 1855 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
the race of Mr. Edwards being a defaulter, although
I 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 Catteriek 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 made the dis-
covery the day after my horse was objected to at
Catteriek. Coroner ran in my name at Stockbridge,
but he was not my property. A horse entered in
Edwards's name ran third for that race. _

Ito-examined—There are a great many Edwardses
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. Pod-
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 de-
fendant, and called
Mr. T. Winteringham, who said—l 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 Easb3,7
Triennial Produce Stakes. Two mares, the pro-
perty of Mr. Edward Brockett—namely, 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 before. 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 &gain. 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. I 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 cpm-
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, " I do 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, dissent°
Capt. Lawson.
Witness--I 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. v 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 Newmarket
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 threat 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 1854, 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 he
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 ou 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 inspe2t 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 wearing 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 aweek or two before that time ;
that when the plaintiff's wife called on the defend-
ant shoitly 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 made 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, saying that 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 the 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 a 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 io 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 of London. In 1854 he
was a widower with one son and two daughters.

His age was 46, and he had an incomo estimated at
upwards of £6,000 a-year. On 11th July in that
year he married the respondent, then a Miss Marett,
who resided at Barnes, and whose age was about
30. She had no fortune, and by the settlement he
secured to her the interest of £lO,OOO during her
life in the event of her surviving him, and one-fifth
of that sum absolutely. After their marriage they
resided sometimes at Braziers, an estate belonging
to Mr. Keats in Oxfordshire, and sometimes at his
town house in Gloucester-gardens. In 1857 they
made a continental tour, staying for a short time
at Lucerne, and on their return to England in
September took the house No. 4, Brunswick-place,
Brighton. Mr. Keats's term of office having ex-
pired he was frequently absent in town, because,
in addition to his usual business, he had to attend
to various matters connected with his office for the
purpose of obtaining his " quietus," or discharge
from responsibility. They saw a great deal ofsociety,
and about this time they were introduced to Don
Pedro de Montezuma. This person was described by
Mr. Phinn as a needy adventurer, who at one time
gained his living as a teacher of music in Dublin.
He was a Spaniard by birth; his manners were at-
tractive, he had great musical talents and a very
fine voice. Mr. Keats, a short time after the ac-
quaintance commenced, complained to his wife that
Don Pedro's visits were too frequent, and high
words appeared to have passed between them on the
subject more than once. They continued, however,
to live upon affectionate terms, and Dr. Carter, who
attended Mrs. Keats during an illness, said that
Mr. Keats's conduct on that occasion was as kind as
possible; but Don Pedro's acquaintance was not
given up. Early in Nov. they removed to London,
and Mrs. Keats took charge on the journey of the
portmanteau of Don Pedro, who shortly followed
them. They took up their residence at a house in
Westbourne-street, and there the visits of Don
Pedro were renewed. Mr. Keats again complained,
and appeared to have said or done something offen-
sive to Don Pedro, because on the 26th Nov. he
wrote Don Pedro a letter apologising for his
"warmth on Tuesday last," assuring him that no-
thing was further from his thoughts than to be
guilty of rudeness, and asking him to forget what
had passed, and come to dinner on the following
Saturday. The quarrels with his wife on the subject
of Don Pedro were, however, renewed, and his sus-
picions became so strong that he twice left the house,
taking with him his two daughters, but on both
occasions returned after a night's absence. Don
Pedro was lodging in Norfolk-street, Strand and
Mrs. Keats visited him two or three times. On one
occasion she went in her carriage, accompanied by
her maid, Alice Adams, who was sent to look at the
Great Globe, Leicester-square, while she remained
in Don Pedro's apartments for abouts two hours.
Mrs. Keats at last proposed a separation, but before
its terms could be agreed upon, the quarrels becoming
more violent she left the house with her cousin, Mr.
Marett, and her maid, and took lodgings in Ebury-
street, Pimlico. She remained there until Jan. 20,
1858, and wrote a kind letter, with her address to
her husband. Don Pedro removed to lodgings in
the same street, and was a constant visitor during
her stay. On the 20th of Jan. she and Adams went
to Dover, leaving no address at Ebury-street, and
took rooms at the Lord Warden. A room was also
taken close to those occupied by Mrs. Keats for
Don Pedro. who soon followed them. A chamber-
maid saw him come out of Mrs. Keat's bedroom
early one morning, Adams to whom this was told,
then watched them one night, and saw him pass
out of her room to his own. She told her mistress
that she had heard remarks on her conduct, but
Mrs. Keats only said that she must represent Don
Pedro as her brother-in-law. In about a fortnight
they returned to London, Mrs. Keats and Adams
living for two or three days at the Euston Hotel,
and Don Pedro at the Victoria, an hotel opposite.
Mrs. Keats here received from her solicitor £lOO,
the amount of a legacy which had been bequeathed
to her. The party then proceeded to Dublin, and on
the journey Mrs. Keats took off her wedding ring
and presented it to Don Pedro. She also said, that
in future she should pass by the name of Miss Marsh
and Don Pedro changed his name to Don Juan de
Monteblanco. On their arrival in Dublin they took
lodgings, and passed as brother and sister-in-law.
Although they did not occupy the same bedroom,
the evidence of Adams proved that they there car-
ried on an adulterous intercourse. Adams further
stated that Mrs. Keats very often cried when she
was alone, and that her stock of jewels and dresses
was rapidly decreasing. On the 11th of March
Adams left because, she said, she did not think her
mistress was leading a proper life, and entered the
service of a family in Ireland. Mrs. Keats, about
the same time, borrowed £3O or £4O from a friend
of her husband, who happened to be at Dublin, and
who implored her to be cautious in her conduct.
At some subsequent period she appeared to have
left Don Pedro, and to have returned to her mother,
with whom she now resides.
The principal witness to these facts was Alice
Adams, whose deposition, taken in Ireland by a corn=
mission, was read. Evidence was also given by the
various lodging-house keepers with whom Mrs.
Keats had lived.
The case opened by Dr. Phillimore, on behalf of
Mrs. Keats was, that she ought not to be punished
for an offence which had been mainly caused by
her husband's neglect and ill-treatment, founded on
a jealousy at first without foundation. By allowing
her to leave his house with no more than £lO in
her pocket he had thrown her into the arms of her
seducer. But the chief ground of opposition to the
petition was that there had been full condonation
after all the facts had been brought to his know-
ledge. The petition, which contained averments of
all the principal facts, and was verified by Mr.
Keats upon his oath, was filed on the 22d of May
last, and since that time he had been in commum-
, cation with her family for the purpose of bringing
labout a reconciliation. In October he wrote to her
mother, Mrs. Marett, saying that he should be
happy to enter into negotiations for the purpose of
avoiding vexatious exposures, and that his " de-
ceived" wife had been the dupe of a " most out-
rageous organised family plot." He also wrote
that he knew very little of the person who had
undertaken the legal proceedings, and that the
suit had been instituted contrary to his wish.
Other letters were written to the same effect,
and in October an aunt of Mrs. Keats', Miss
Janverin, visited him by appointment, and they
actually set out to the rail way station for the pur-
pose of joining Mrs. Keats at St. Leonards, but on
the road he called at his solicitor's, and went no
Nov.urther. A letter dated the sth ov. was then
received from him, stating that after the evidence
which had just been brought to his knowledge he
must &cline all further communication except
through his solicitor. But further communications
were entered into, and as late as the 27th Nov.,
when there was no pretence for saying that fresh
evidence had been discovered, a meeting actually
took place between Mr. Keats, his wife, and her
sister and brother-in-law. They conversed amicably
for about an hour and a-half; he expressly declared
that he forgave her, and at parting he shook hands
and said, " Well, my dear, I hope we shall under-
stand one another better, but we must not refer to
what has passed." No doubt, it was contended, he
felt remorse for his unkindness, and was unwilling
to punish an offence to which he had contributed ;
but his family, who had always disliked the match,
obliged him to go on with the suit. Leave had
been obtained to place a plea of condonation on the
record, and it was submitted that the plea would
be fully proved by the letters and conversation of
the petioner.
Dr. Phillimore, in the course of his address, was
appealing to the jury, as the guardians of public
morality, not to allow Mr. Keats to obtain the
remedy he sought, when he was interrupted by
Sir C. Cresswell, who said—The jury have a very
simple duty to perform, to return a verdict accord-
ing to the evidence upon the issues placed before
them. A jury cannot more efficiently guard what
you call public morality than by confining their
attention to the evidence:-

Dr. Phillimore said they could not altogether
exclude from their consideration the consequences
of their verdict.

The Court adjourned before the opening of the
case for the co-respondent.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—YORK, Dec. 10.
(Before. Mr. Baron Watson.)
Thomas M'Voy, 28, and Ann Walsh, 19, were
charged with having, on the 25th of July, at Leeds,
robbed Joseph Hampshire of five sovereigns, a half
sovereign, four half-crowns, and other moneys.
Mr. Middleton and Mr. Baines appeared for the
prosecution ; the prisoners were not defended.
The proseeutor, it appeared, is a stone mason at
Huddersfield, and on the night of Saturday, the
24th of July, he went to Leeds to purchase some
goods, and to spend the Sunday with his brother.
He slept in Kirkgate on the Saturday night, and
left between five and six o'clock on the following
morning. When near his brother's house he went
into a privy and fastened the door. While there a
woman knocked at the door, and said, " Make
haste, I'm in a hurry." The prosecutor refused to
open it, and immediately afterwards two men and
a woman came with a rush at the door, and broke
it in. The prosecutor then saw Walsh, M'Voy,
and two other men, by whom he was seized and
robbed of £6 or £7, one of the parties holding him
by the throat by placing his arm across it. They
dim ran away, and, being impeded by the state of
his dress, he could not overtake them. On the
following day M‘Voy, who was in the company of
Walsh, went to Lister, a policeman, in the street,
and said he gave himself up for robbing a man in

Somerset-street of .£5, in company of two young
men he did not know. Walsh denied that she had
anything to do with the robbery, and M'Voy now
stated that it was a made-up tale.
The prosecutor's brother was called as a witness,
when

His Lordship remarked that it was quite unne-
cessary to bring a witness at the eipense of Go-
vernment to prove that there was a privy in Leeds.
He had observed the same thing before in the Leeds
cases, and he hoped the taxing officer would take
care not to allow the expenses of these unnecessary
witnesses.

Mr. Compton, the taxing officer, said they were
bound over to appear.
Mr. Baron Watson said the magistrates' clerks
ought to know their duty, and not send unneces-
sary witnesses.
The jury found the prisoners guilty, and they
were each sentenced to four years penal servitude.
Immediately upon receiving her sentence the
female prisoner made use of some disgusting lan-
guage to the judge, and, seizing a pair of handcuffs,
she threw them with great violence among the pri-
soners who were in the dock. The officers had
forcibly to remove her, his lordship observing to
the jury, " Now, gentlemen, you see you are not
far wrong in your verdict."
Daniel Hanson, 34, was charged with having, on
the 18th June, at Hipperholme, assaulted Sidney
Ellis, and stolen from his person a silver watch,
4s. Bd., a bunch of keys, and a basket.
Mr. Blanshard appeared for the prosecution ; and
Mr. Campbell Foster defended the prisoner.
The prosecutor, it appeared, is a schoolmaster,
residing at Lightcliffe, near Halifax. He arrived
by rail at the Lightcliffe station, at half-past 10
o'clock on the night of Friday, June 18, and he
then proceeded towards his house, which is about a
quarter of a mile from the station. On arriving
halfway home three men walked behind him, threw
him down, and rifled his pockets of his money. He
kept his handstill on his waistcoat pocket, in which
his watch was, when one of the men, tearing his
hand away from- his waistcoat, knelt upon his arm
and took his watch. At this time he was held by
the throat by a man behind him. The man who
took his watch he was juite certain was • the pri-
soner, though he only saw him for an instant, as
the men all then ran away over a wall, taking his
basket, which contained some groceries, with them.
He afterwards saw the prisoner in the gaol at
Bradford, and identified him among six or seven
other prisoners. He denied that he had then ex-
pressed some doubts about his identity, but did not
then prefer the present charge against him. The
prisoner was in custody for some other offence, and
was discharged, and he was not taken again into
custody until three weeks afterwards on the pre-
sent charge.
For the defence it was contended that the pro-
secutor was mistaken in the prisoner's identity,
and that he had expressed himself as uneasy in his
mind since at having sworn to him. Witnesses
were also called who proved that at the time of the
robbery the prisoner was sitting having a glass of
ale with a friend in a beerhouse four miles from
the scene of the robbery, and at 11 o'clock was
seen to enter his own - house, immediately on leav-
ing the beerhouse.
His lordship asked the prosecutor if he could
make anything of the case after this ; it was a very
weak one to begin with.
The learned counsel aftek what his lordship had
said, would not press the case any. further.
The prisoner was then acquitted.