The Sun.
London, England, 1866-02-24 00:00:00

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. M. Williams appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Parry for the defendant.
From the opening statement of counsel it appeared that
the plaintiff was a restaurant keeper in Panton-street, and
was also engaged in betting transactions, and the defen-
dant was a gentleman living near Ipswich. The action
was brought to recover a sum of £6O, and the defendant
pleaded not indebted. The transaction arose out cf a bet
which plaintiff alleged he was directed to lay of GO to 40 on
Heenan in the fight which came on in 1863 between him
and King. This money was paid into the hands of Mr.
Owen Swift, at his house in Tichbourne-street, about a
month prior before the fight. The wager was made with
a Mr. Toss Parker, and the money was deposited duly,
although there was no entry of the amount.
John Coney, the plaintiff, was examined by Mr. Wil-
liams—Ho had paid the money to Swift on the same
evening that ho had seen Mr. Clarkson, with whom ho
was on intimate terms for some years previously. The
defendant asked him if he could make a wager on his be-
half, backing Heenan, who was the favourite, at odds of
£6O to £lO. The witness had already backed Heenan at
the same odds. He paid £l5 deposit to Swift, and when
Heenan lost the fight ho paid the balance of £45. It was
not usual to have wagers entered.

The plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Parry
He had made the bet on his own account with Major Brown
the evening before he saw Mr. Clarkson. Swift had been
a fighting man, but at present ho was better known in
connection with racing. His house was a late one, and he
permitted prostitutes to congregate there. The licence of
his house was in the name of a Mr. Bushnell. He had on
several occasions been fined by the magistrates, and on
one occasion he had been fined £2O for keeping his house
open late and allowing loose females to assemble there. He
had never been fined for allowing gambling to be carried
on in his premises. Here a letter was read in the hand-
writing of the plaintiff, but notwithstanding that docu-
ment he adhered to his statement as to having received
pesitivo instructions from Mr. Clarkson to make the
wager. He had seen Mr. Clarkson frequently drunk, and
ho was addicted to intemperance. He swore_must posi-
tively that he was not intoxicated when he gave witness
the order about laying odds in favour of Heenan.

Owen Swift was examined, and said that he kept a
public-house in Tichbourne-street, and he had received
the money from the plaintiff for the wager on behalf of the
defendant.

Mr. Sergeant Parry said that ho was placed in a posi-
tion of difficulty owing to some incorrectness in the infor-
mation ho received, and under the circumstances he trusted
the Court would allow him to amend his plead by adding
that the transaction was illegal by a wager.
After some discussion between the counsel the learned
judge decided that he could not alter the amendment of
the plea.

Mr. Sergeant Parry then addressed the jury on behalf of
his client, who said he had been a man of considerable
property, and no doubt he led such a life as could not be
regarded with approval by a number of respectable men.
The fact was that the affairs of the defendant were in the
hands of trustees, who were desirous of terminating his
connection with persons of such a description as the plain-
tiff. He contended that the plaintiff, having lost consider-
able sums by betting on the fight between Heenan and
King, he wanted to recoup himself by making the defen-
dant pay him a sum of £6O.

Simon Cutting, a bailiff, said that he was in the employ-
ment of the defendant, who was confined to his bed by
rheumatic fever.

There was no other evidence adduced for the defence.
Mr. Ifuddleston having addressed the jury,
The learned judge summed up.
The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict for the
defendant.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
BELLEW V. BELLEW, PAIN, AND OTHERS.
This extraordinary cause was resumed this morning,
Mr. O'Malley opening the case for the plaintiff.
The case will not certainly, from present appearances,
terminate before Wednesday next.