The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-15 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—FRIDAY, Aug. 14.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)
THE GREAT HAZARD CASE ONCE MORE.
LAMBERT V. SIDEBOTTOM.
This was what is called an interpleader issue to
try the validity of the bill of sale of the lease of a
house and a large quantity of furniture, valued at
2,4001,, which had been executed by one James
Adkins to the present plaintiff.
Mr. E. James, Q.C., Sergeant Ballantine, and
Mr. Hawkins, were counsel for the defendant ;
Mr. Bovill, Q.C.., and Mr. Needham appeared for
the plaintiff.
The parties in this action are all well known in
the sporting world, and it will be remembered
that in June last the defendant brought an action
against Jas. Adkins to recover 6,0001. for money
of which he represented he had been cheated at a
gaming-house kept by that person, called the
" Berkeley Club," by means of false dice being
used at the game of hazard, and the defendant con-
sented to a verdict passing against him for the
sum claimed. Adkins at that time kept a large and
extensive establishment at Brompton, called Win-
teraolf House, and in due course an execution was
put in under the judgment of the court, and the
present plaintiff then set up a claim to the property
under a bill of sale, and the object of tho present
action was to try the validity of that instrument.
Mr. Bovill having briefly opened the case,
Mr. Geo. Lambert, the plaintiff, was examined :
He stated that he was a betting man on the Turf,
and was acquainted with Mr. Adkins, and also with
Mr. Padwick. He deposed that he purchased the
lease of his house and the furniture contained in it.
at Brompton, and he did so by the advice of Mr.
Padwick, who recommended him to make the
purchase. He said that he paid 5001. for the lease,
and 8001. for the furniture, and he took possession
of the place, under the bill of sale, on the 22d of
June. He gave a check for the amount upon his
bankers.
Cross-examined : Had known Adkins a great
many years, and had had betting transactions
with him. Was present at the trial at Westmin-
ster Hall, between the present defendant and Mr.
Adkins, when the verdict passed against the
latter. .

Mr. James produced the false dice that were
exhibited at that trial, and which Mr. Sidebottom
alleged to have been the instruments of his having
been cheated to a very large amount.
The witness said he believed they were the same
dice, and he added than, after they had been pro-
duced on the former occasion, Sir F. Kelly, who
was the counsel for Adkins, gave-up his case, and
consented to the verdict. On the same day the
verdict was delivered he went down to Adkins's
house, at Brompton, and took possession of the
property under the bill of sale.
Mr. James inquired where Adkins was now ?
The witness said he believed that ho was at
Boulogne for the benefit of his health. (A. laugh.)
Mr. Padwick deposed that he was acquainted
with the plaintiff, and also knew Adkins, and he
remembered an application being made to him on
behalf of the latter to advance a large sum of
money upon the security of his house and furni-
ture. He declined, however, to do so, and recom-
mended that the application should be made to the
plaintiff, as an investment for his money.
Cross-examined : The application that was made
to him was to advance tho money upon the secu-
rity of Adkins's house and furniture, but he would
have nothing to do with such a transaction.
Evidence was then given of the check having
been at the plaintiff's bankers, and the witnesses
who took possession of the property were also
examined.
The Lord Chief Baron observed that there did
not appear to be any dispute as to these facts, and
the only question was, whether the transaction was
a genuine one or not.
Mr. James made a most powerful speech on be-
half of the defendant, and he said that although
his learned friend had expressed himself anxious
to lay before the jury the whole of the circum-
stances connected with the proceedings under which
the plaintiff claimed the property of Adkins, he had
omitted to call several persons whose evidence
would have been very important if the bill of sale
had been a regular and honest transaction. He
then called the attention of the jury to the facts as
they appeared in evidence, and submitted that
there could be no reasonable doubt'that the bill of
sale was a sham and a fraud, to protect the pro-
perty of Adkins, and to prevent the plaintiff, who
had been robbed by means of false dice, and other