The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-23 00:00:00

companied by Mr. Peedio while at Sunderland.

Thompson asked mo to make two bets, 1 for 50 on Regalia
and another for 50 on Ely, provided I could get 2 to 1 and
a certainty of a start. I was to make the bets at Stockton
racecourse. I told him Regalia might not run, and that
Ely, if it did run, 2to 1 could not be got. We spoke of
Exceller being a stable companion to Regalia, and very
likely if they did not mean Regalia, it would be no doubt
thought that Exceller could win. He wanted me to back
Ely and Regalia, but I was to advance the money. I told
him I could not do that. I then told him that the Gladia-
teur bet not being about to come off for some time, that if
he were very anxious to invest at Stockton, I could sot that
money free by cancelling the bet. He consented to that,
and said he had not got the voucher by him, but he would
send it to me in London. He did so. The voucher I pro-
duce is he same as I sent to Sunderland. Thompson's in-
structions were to take 2 to 1 about both horses, Ely and
Regalia. I was to back Exceller, if that horse ran, instead
of Regalia ; and in reference to Ely's race, I was to back
her if 2 to 1 could be got; if not, I was to back the next best
thing in the race. I then went over to Stockton, and, on
getting there, I found it currently reported that Regalia
would not run. I made very earnest inquiries about Re-
galia. I did not believe, from what I heard, that Regalia
would run, and I telegraphed to Thompson what I thought,
and told him that 1 should back the next best thing if
not directed to the contrary. I sent another telegraph,
stating I should back Exceller. Excellor ran, but came in
third. I tried to get the odds of 2to 1 against Ely. I
found the bets were on Ely and not against her. I then
took 500 to 50 ou Bandarilla. 1 backed the horse, because
thought Ely would not win. I telegraphed to Thompson,
telling him what I had done. Both bets were lost.
Lord Chief Justice—Where was Bandarilla, in the race?
Witness—Third horse, my lord.
A number of letters and copies of the telegrams and libel
were here put into court.
Examined Mr. Temple for the defendant—l first took
interestint byurf transactions at the beginning of the year
1865. I started the common business in February of that
year, but I have been connected as printer of the Sporting
Life before. I did not ask Elliot, when I bought the paper,
why it was called Tatersall's Tissue. I supposed the
paper p was so continued in order to convey to the public
-
that the Tissue was purely a racing paper. I don't for one
moment suppose the people ever thought that Messrs.
Tattersall were at all connected with the paper. A " tis-
sue" is a slip of paper issued by racing agents. It contains
purely racing intelligence. I had nothing to do with
betting until I took the tissue. I take the name of Hopkins
merely to keep the racing particulars reported from my
general printing business. If I had not done so it would
have "jumbled up" sporting with my other general busi-
ness. I know other papers in which assumed names are
used. It is a very common practice. I cannot call to mind
at this moment any commission agent carrying on business
under a feigned name. The use of assumed names is very
common in newspapers. I swear that I was empowered to
back the horses I thought best in the event of Ely
and Regalia not being backed. I cannot recollect
who first spoke about Exceller, whether it was Mr.
Peedie or Mr. Thompson, but I swear it was talked
about for some minutes. Exceller was looked upon as
a good horse. I swear I said the money could only
bo raised by cancelling the bet about Gladiateur. That I
distinctly swear. Thompson was to write to me at Stock-
ton Post-office during the races. I went there frequently,
but I did not get a single letter.
Mr. Temple—Who made the bet with Gladiateur?
Witness—l did.
Lord Chief-Justice—You laid him the 200 to 100 yourself?
Witness —Yes.
Mr. Temple—Did you do this secretly ?
Witness—No.
Mr. Temple—You did not communicate to Thompson
that you were the person laying the Gladiateur money ?

Witness -No, but ho must have known all about it.

Mr. Temple—Did you not receive a letter from Mr.
Thompson at the Stockton Post-office telling you to keep
the Gladiateur bet sacred ?
Witness—No, I swear I did not.
The Lord Chief Justice—And you went to the post-
(au whilo at Stockton ?

Witness —Yes, my lord.
Mr. Temple—Who did you lay the mon©y out on Ban-
darilla ?

Witness —I cannot say. It was divided between five or
six. I don't keep a record of bets.
Mr. Temple—Have you a betting book?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Temple—Don't you enter the names of the parties
with whom you lay your money ?
Witness—No.

To Mr. Temple—l laid the money with men with whom
I have no knowledge, but I got a voucher from them. If
the horse backed lost the race the voucher was of no use,
and I always destroy the vouchers.
The Lord Chief Justice—How were you to get the
money, supposing the horse won, if you did not know the
parties ; you might never see the persons again ?
Witness—The betting men are all well known to every
person frequenting a race-course. I did not enter the bet
in a book. I put Mr. Thompson's name on the back of the
card I got when I made the Bandarilla bet ; and when the
rase was run and Bandarilla lost, the card became of no
further use and was destroyed. The only way a bet is
ever completed on a race-course is by voucher. I make
the bet, pay the money, got a card, and if the horse wins I
get the money. I did precisely the same with the Exceller
bet.

A copy of the telegram received by the defendant from
the plaintiff at Stockton was hero put in, in which it was
stated that Execller and Bandarilla had been "booked."

The nevor wrote the word " booked,"it would
have been absurd. I wrote the word "backed."

Mr. Temple—The telegram I have put into your hand is
the ono we received from you.
Mr. D. Seymour—The telegram you now have in your
hand is merely a copy of the original you wrote at Stock-
ton.
Plaintiff—Yes.

Mr. D. Seymour—We have written to the Telegraph
Company, and have produced that which we received from
the company.
Witness— I wrote the original in tho Telegraph Office at
Stockton.

Mr. D. Seymour—When you lay a bet for instance of
£5O at a race course you lay it with more than one person ?

Witness— Yes, it is safer and better to lay .£5 with one
and .£5 with another.
Lord Chief Justice—Then is the money all put down ?
Witness—No, my lord, the man who lays the smaller
sum has to stake his alone.
Lord Chief Justice—You pay before you lose.
Witness—Yes ?
Lord Chief Justice—lf the money is lost?
Witness—l have no more to do with tho matter ?
Mr. D. Seymour—lf won ?
Witness—l go for the money and get it.
Lord Chief Justice—The man who takes the odds then
stakes his money ?
Witness - Yes, my lord.

Mr. James Peedie—l am the editor of Totemairs
and have been so for a year and a half. I was with the
plaintiff when the conversation between Mr. Thompson
and Mr. M'Callum relative to the cancelling of the Gladia-
teur bet took place. I can say who first proposed the
matter. I know Mr. M'Callum demurred to do so as it was
irregular. Eventually it was agreed that the bet should be
off, and Mr. Thompson said ho would send the voucher to
London as a proof that the bet was null and void. The
voucher was sent. Mr. Thompson said if ho won at
Stockton he should put the £lOO again on Gladiataur.
When he found ho was in possession of the money, Thomp-
son said he wished to back Ely and Regalia for the Great
Northern Leger and the Claret Stakes. The conditions
Thompson laid down were that we were to get 2 to 1, and
both horses were run. The bets were to be laid at
the post. Mr. M'Callum said it was possible
ono or both would not run, and that 2 to 1 could
not be got about Ely. In that case Thompson said we
were to invest on the races, and I perfectly recollect he
said, " Oh, well do the best you can for me." Exceller was
mentioned about the middle of the conversation, and I am
certain that Mr. Thompson said if Regalia did not run we
were to back her stable companion, and if the odds could
not be got about Ely we were to back something else in the
race. I went to Stockton with the plaintiff, and from what
we heard the money was not put either upon Ely or Re-
galia. Exceller and Bandarilla were both placed in the
race.
Cross-examined by Mr. Temple—The bets were to be
made at the post, when the numbers of the horses were put
up. Gladiateur was in August at 2to 1. I will positively
swear that Exceller was mentioned during the conversa-
tion. I don't know the reason why the plaintiff's paper is
called " Tatarsall's Tissue." I know that tho word " Ta-
tersall" was not used to induce the public to believe it was
connected with the Messrs. Tattersall's of Hyde-park.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Temple then addressed the jury for the defendant.
He then called
Mr. Edward Tattersall—l am a member of the firm at
Knightsbridge. Ilb st became aware of the existence of
the plaintiff's paper about four or five months ago. I did
not take any steps to prevent the circulation, but I wrote a
letter to the Sporting Life, repudiating any connection with
it. The plaintiff saw the letter, because his answer to it
appeared in the same paper.
Letter read. It declared that the Messrs. Tattersall re-
pudiated all connection with the " Tissue;" that the assump-
tion of the name of Tattersall was considered by them to
be a piece of impertinence.
Examination continued—l did not then know the defen-
dant at all. He is not a member of Tattersall's. I don't
know anything of betting, but that connected with our
room. lam quite sure if ono of the gentlemen of our room
used an alias ho would be turned out. I know that there
are assumed names used on the turf.

By Lord Chief Justico I don't know that the publishers
of sporting papers bet as commissioners.

Mr. Edward Thompson—l am the manager of a co-ope-
rative store at Sunderland. I first corresponded with the
plaintiff in 1865. The first time I became aware that the
plaintiff's name was not James Hopkins was from the
Sporting Life. On the 22d August I received a voucher
relative to the Gladiateur bet. When the plaintiff came to
Sunderland I went to the hotel to him, as I did not wish
him to come to the store, as it might cause suspicion that
I was betting. When I went to the hotel I asked for
James Hopkins, and I saw the plaintiff. I told him he
had made me a debtor to him of over £2O, and
I said, What do you mean by it ? Plaintiff had
no other answer but that the commission I had given him
was a difficult one. I told him 1 had sent him a letter to
London, and he asked me what it was about. I said I
wanted to make up some of my losses, and as Ely and
Regalia were entered for the Stockton races, he might, if
he chose, back these horses from Ito 50 each. I told him
I had no more money to speculate with, and asked him
if he would deposit the money for me, as I considered the
St. Leger bet a very safe one.
Lord Chief-Justice—You wanted him to advance the
money on the strength of that bet on Gladiateur ?

Witness—Yes.
The Lord Chief Justice—ll• was not disposed to do
that ?

Witness—No. Peedie suggested that the bet on Gladia-
tour shauld be off, and that Ely and Regalia should be
backed, and that I agreed to. The arrangement was en-
tered in a book Mr. Peedie had in his pocket.

The Lord Chief Justice—That book ought to be pro-
duced.

Mr. Seymour—We say nothing of the kind occurred.
The Lord Chief Justice—Was anything said about other
bets ?

Witness—No; nothing was said about the bet on Gladia-
tour being connected.
Lord Chief Justice—What were you to return the voucher
for ?

Witness—As security, supposing the two horses left.
No names of any other horses were mentioned.

Lord Chief Justice—That I understand you distinctly
to state. No such name as Exceller was mentioned at that
interview ?

Witness Certainly. 1 afterwards ►rote to the plaintiff,
telling him to keep the Gladiateur bet sacred. Before
writing to the Sporting Life I had written to the plaintiff,-
asking him to return Gladiateur's voucher on the 18th of
August. After the Leger I don't recollect making anY
application for my money. I told a person named Brad"
laugh to write to him about it. I recollect seeing Mr:
Montague Scott, the attorney, at Sunderland. He showed
me some letters and telegrams, and asked me if they Were
in my handwriting. He asked me about the society of
which I was manager, and then left. He came to me and
I told him I did not expect that I should ever hear an
more about it. Ho said I need not fight the battle of the
Sporting Life, as it would not put sixpence in my pocket. I
said if I was supoenied I should have to go to London, and
if I went there I should state the truth. I looked upon
a subpoena like a summons to attend. Scott said, "I Dead
not go to London that I might feign illness or a thousand
things that I could get out of the way."
Lord Chief Justice—Do you mean to say that all that
passed between you and Mr. Scott ?

Witness—Yes.
Mr. Temple—Do you pay anything towards the defence
of this suit ?

Witness—No. I am paid to come up.
Cross-examined—When plaintiff, Poodle, and myself
met, we had dinner together, and we talked about sporting
matters. We were talking about three horses, and I swo.r
we never mentioned the names of any other horses al
connection with Stockton Races but Ely and Regalia. I
don't know anything about Wright's Handicap Book".
I don't know what a handicap book is. Both
Hopkins and Poodle demurred to the proposal to open
the Gladiateur bet.

Mr. D. Seymour—Did you not, in tho course of Your
transactions with the plaintiff, transmit to him a cheque
for £250?
Witness—Yes.

Mr. Seymour—Where did you get it from ?
Witness—From a friend.
Mr. Seymour—Who ?
Witness—A Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Seymour—Who is he ?
Witness—A large provision merchant.
Mr. Seymour—Did you tellhim what you wanted it for?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Seymour—Did you tell him it was to be used ill
betting ?
Witness—No.

Mr. Seymour—Did you not tell him it was for the put'
pose of you and your wife opening a Temperance Hotel ?

Why—l did.

The Lord Chief Justice—The facilities given by COIII..
mission agents for such transactions was much to be re-
gretted.
Mr. Seymour—,,No doubt, my lord. lam not here to
justify betting by parsons in the position of the witness.
Mr. Temple then addressed the jury for the defendants
and contended that the evidence had fully justified the
publication of the strictures in the Sporting Life, and the
words complained of were fully justified by the circutu"
stances connected with the case.

(We shall continue the case in a later edition.)

The following remarks upon the silk sales, which,
commenced yesterday, are from the circular 01
Messrs. Durant and Co. :—" The quantity offere,d;
was 1,400 bales Bengal, 4,000 bales China, 10'
bales Japan, and 1,500 bales Canton silk. o°
whole was allowed to pass without biddings, and
the actual business done is even less than usual.
In the general market we have a continuation of the
inactivity and indisposition to purchase, which has
existed more or less during the last three
hence, with the exception of one or two forced sales,
transactions are of the most limited character. The
deliveries have fallen back to the scale 01
December." months,
During the last few days there has been less acti"
vity exhibited in the markets for Foreign and Colo-
nial Produce. Sugars have been in some instance°
in to a
a shade cheaper, and coffee has been dealt
limited extent at a decline of 6d. to ls. per oct°
Rice, fruit, and spices have remained without mate
rial change as regards values, and there has been.a
fair amount of business reported in tallow at steadY
quotations for both present and forward delivery.