The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-17 00:00:00

THURSDAY

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEIVS BENCH, Jan. 16.

THE QUEEN V. THE INHABITANTS OF CAMBERWELL.-

THE NIINHEAD CEMETERY.

This was an appeal against au order of the justices of
Surrey, with respect to the assessment made upon the
Nunhead Cemetery Company. It appeared that the
justices had assessed the ra•.es upon the whole receipts of
the company.
Mr. GURNEY now appeared in support of the appeal,
and argued that the assessment was manifestly unjust
and illegal, inasmuch as no deduction was made for the
heavy expenses ef carrying ou the concern' such as
the makin4 of the vaults, the salaries cf the directors,
the chaplain, and the London offices expenses, which
amounted to a considerable sum. He prayed the Court,
on these grounds, to quash the order at sessions.
Mr. BOVILL appeared in support of the rating, and
contended that the order was pet fectly fair, and in ac-
cordance with the rules which governed the rating of
public companies.
The Court took time to consider 41:e points raised.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 16.
(Sittings in Banco.)
GREENLAND V. chArm‹, M.T.
This action was tried by the Lord Chief B iron, at
the last sittings in Middlesex, when there was a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, with damages 2001.
Mr. Sergeant SHER now moved fora rule, calling
on the plaintiff to show cause why a new trial should
not be had, on the ground that the verdict was against
the evidence. The action was brought against the
defendant as one of the proprietors of the Thames
steamer Bachelor, which plies between London and
Vauxhall bridges, to recover compensation for injuries
sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of a collision
which occurred between that vessel and another
Thames steam-boat, called the Sons of the Thames,
on board of which the plaintiff was a passenger, the
collision in question being charged in the declaration
to have been occasioned by the negligence of one of
the defendant's servants. The negligence attributed
to the Bachelor, as on the part of the Sons of the
Thames was, that another steam-boat being athwart
the stream, the Bachelor attempted to get between
the head of the Sons of the Thames and the other
steamer, so as to pass round her, and then
enable herself to continue her course down the river.
This was the allegation against the defendant's vessel,
which the defendant had to answer. The Learned
Counsel contended that the evidence of several per-
sons connected with the Bachelor completely disproved
it, and the verdict for the plaintiff had been returned
accordingly.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—I have no doubt as to
the grounds on which the verdict proceeded. If this
had been a simple question between A and B, the
mode in which the case ought to have been deter-
, mined is sufficiently obvious. The difficulty, however,
of ever getting a verdict, where a man comes to com-
plain of a personal injury, is such as to make one al-
most wish there.was some other way of determining
every such case.
Mr. Sergeant SHER-4 think I may collect from
your Lordship's summing up, that your Lordship
would have been far more satisfied with a verdict for
the defendant.
The LORD CHIEF BARON-011, yes. I think you
asked for a nonsuit. I could not properly nonsuit,
hut I think you would have exercised a proper discre-
tion if you bad not called witnesses at all.
Mr. Sergeant Saw—All I can say is, that if I had
not called witnesses, I should have found•myself in a
terrible scrape.—Rule granted.
WILSON V. ASHLEY.
This was an action of covenant, to recover
damages for an alleged breach, in practising as a
surgeon and apothecary, within seven miles of High-
town, near Bradford, Yorkshire. The defendant paid
50/. into court, and denied that the plaintiff was en-
titled to any further compensation by reason of the
alleged breach of covenant.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, with Mr. 11. Hill, appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Atherton for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence that in the latter
part of 1847 the defendant, who had practised for
nearly thirty years as a surgeon at Hightown, was
inclined to retire from business, and agreed with the
plaintiff to introduce him to his patients, and assist
him in the conduct of his business for twelve months,
for a consideration of 4001., and at the expiration of
that period to retire from the business altogether, and
cease to practice within seven miles of Hightown.
These terms were embodied in a formal deed,
executed by both parties. The plaintiff now com-
plained that the defendant had not fulfilled any of the
covenants contained in the agreement, and that he
had violated it especially by continuing to attend
some wealthy patients at Hightown, and prescribing
for them after the expiration of the year. The pre-
scriptions given by the defendant to these patients
were made up at a chemist's in the town, so that the
plaintiff, it was represented, lost materially in both
branches of his business. The fact that the defendant
had visited and prescribed for patients residing at
Hightown, after he had transferred the business to
the plaintiff, was proved by admissions made by the
defendant to two of the witnesses. It appeared that
, when the defendant entered into the agreement with
the plaintiff, he was in such an indifferent state of
health that he apprehended he should be unequal to
attend to his profession, but that his health having
been subsequently re-established, he thought himself
justified in resuming his practice, as he had a wife
and large family.
It was now contended, or. the part of the defen-
dant, that the sum paid into court was a sufficient
compensation for any injury the plaintiff had really
sustained.
Mr. Baron RoLrE said it was quite clear the de-
fendant had bound himself not to practice within
seven miles of Hightown, and the evidence went to
show that he had violated that covenant. It was for
the jury to say, under these circumstances, whether
50/. was a sufficient compensation to the plaintiff; or
what further sum he was entitled to by reason of the
breach of covenant.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 300/.

BAIL COURT, Jan. 16.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins.)
HAY P. HETLING.
Mr. Watson and Mr. E. James were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. 11. T.
Cole for the defendant.

This was an action upon two bills cf exchange for
50/. each, accepted by the defendant in favour of the
plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that a person of the
name of Arbuthnot had betted with the defendant
that a horse named Surplice would win the Derby,
that the horse Surplice did win, and that, by the
desire of Arbuthnot, the defendant had given to the
plaintiff a bill for 100/. in respect cf that bet, which
bill had afterwards been renewed by the defendant
giving to the plaintiff the two bills for .50/. each.
To prove the plaintiff's case,
the handwriting of
the acceptance by the defendant was proved. The
plaintiff was a tradesman in Conduit-street.
• Mr. CHAMBER!, in eddresaing the jury for the de-
fendant, said the facts were, that Mr. Arbuthnot was
a " levanter ;" he "levanted" shortly after the Derby.
The defendant was but a porter at the Union Club,
and he had what was called a commission betting-
book. There was a rule upon the turf, that if a
" levanter" would not pay he could not expect bets
to be paid to him. if this had been referred
refusing to pay. The real
dtoefetnhdaneJt was
sy
rCiglhutb,
in they would have said the
defence wa-, that this was a betting transaction.
Surplice was about to run for the Derby, and was
backed by Demonte Arbuthnot, and he took the bet of
10 to 1 against that horse. Surplice ran, and won ;
and, before the settling day arrived, this abominable
eourse was taken :—Arbuthnot, perfectly conscious
he could not appear on the settling day, proceeded,
through the instrumentality of llay, ,the plaintiff, to
threathen the defendant that unless he instantly paid
the 1001. application would be made to the Union
Club to discharge the plaintiff from his situation of
porter at that club, and, under the pressure of that
threat, the defendant had given the bill for 100/. It
was, therefore, clear that the original bill was
given in payment for the bet. The plaintiff had been
to the person who acted for the defendant, and told
him he wanted 100/. for this bet which Arbuthnot
had won from the defendant. The plaintiff had been
aware of the nature of the debt for which the bill was
given. It was well known that a jockey never
betted, but he had generally a considerable stake in
the race, and sometimes, by a sort of paralytic motion
of the arm, he pulled in his horse when be ought to
have let him go. The truth was he had betted by
commission against the horse he rode, and the defen-
dant carried on that business of betting by commis-
sion. Proof would be given of these facts, and then
the defendant would be entitled to a verdict.
Charles Sanders—l know the defendant. He was
waiter or porter at the Union Club. He was in the
habit of betting. I am secretary to the defendant.
He had a betting-book on the Derby of 1848. Ar-
buthnot was a member of the Union Club. I kept the
defendant's betting-book. Surplice ran for the Derby,
and won. I know the plaintiff. I have had the
pleasure of seeing him. I saw him after the Derby
day, and after settling-day. The plaintiff was at the
Star and Garter, Green-street, Leicester-square. He
asked for the defendant, n ha was not there. I asked
him if his business was private, or for betting, and
he said it was for a bet. I asked, upon what horse ;
he said, Surplice. I then searched the defendant's
book, and said there was no such bet. 'lhe plaintiff
said, Arbuthnot had taken the bet for him, and if he
did not pay him, or give some satisfaction, Arbuthnot
was a member of the club, and he would get him out
of his situation. I said, "You must do your best and
your worst." He told me there was 100 to 10 to pay
on Surplice. He then went away. I told the plain-
tiff that Arbuthnot was a defaulter, and that that was
what gave him the " tip" to go away. I saw the
plaintiff again in July ; we said nothing on the sub-
ject; but he told me had got satisfaction, but he did
not say how. I have never seen these bills.
CRossi-emimined—l Ana ;3011 in office. Tile Derby

was run on the 22d or 23d of May, and the Tuesday
following would be settling-day. The defendant is
still porter at the Union, and I still manage his bet-
ting business. He keeps rt betting list. I am not
secretary to any one else. I have not any other busi-
ness except what Ido in the betting line myself. I
am not a member of Tattersall's. My salary is a
per-centage. It is very hard for me to say what Ido
get. I have never reckoned it up. Any one who
goes into our office may stake his money according to
the list, and we undertake to pay if the horse wins.
The defendant keeps lists in the Vauxhall-road, and
at the Star and Garter, in Green-street. The odds
upon Bolingbroke are just what you please to give.
The person who keeps the list pays the money if the
horse wins, without regard to any person who makes
the bet.
Ite-sxamined—lf the 101. had been paid upon this
bet it would have appeared in my ledger.
Two notices front the plaintiff to the defendant
were put in calling upon the defendant to produce an
order for the payment of 1001., signed by Arbuthnot,
and &so the defendant's betting-book and betting-
lists.

A letter from the plaintiff to the defendant was put

in wherein the plaintiff said, " I am sorry to say I
must have the money before four o'clock to-day, or
apply to Mr. A. for it."
Mr. WATsoN then addressed the jury in reply,
urging upon them that there was no evidence to sup-
port the defendant's pier, and calling upon them to
give a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice EaLE having summed up,
The jury retired, but at length gave a verdict for
the defendant.