The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-09 00:00:00

which it aepeired that this was an action brought
by the plaintiff, who was well known on the turf,
against the defendant, who carried on a peculiar
line of medical business under the name of Curtis
and Co-, did also a little on the turf, and a little
as a bill discounter. The object of the action was to
try whether a certain hor e, named Gemma di
Vergy, formerly the property of the late Wm.
Palmer, of Rugeley, and which horse was seized in
February last by the High Sheriff of Berkshire at the
instance of the defendant, was at that time the pro-
perty of the plaintiff or the Hon. F. Lawley, who
had left England. The horse in question was sold
at Tattersales in January, 1856, for 1001. to Mr.
Henry Hargrave', a gentleman well known on the
turf. The horse continued to be his property until
the 27th March, 1856, when Mr. Hargraves sold it
to Mr. F. Lawley for 5001., with his engagements,
and an understanding that the former was to re-
ceive a certain portion of the winnings in the event
of the horse winning certain races for which he was
entered. The plaintiff, who came from Ireland, and
took the benefit of the Insolvent Act early in 1855,
had the good fortune to win on the Cesarewitch in
October, 1855, the sum of 2,0001., and about 1,890/.
on the Derby of last year ;in consequence o f which he
opened an account at the highly respectable bank of
Messrs. Herries, Farquhar, and Co., of London,
paying in and drawing out in the customary way, as
would be seen by the passbook which was produced.
The plaintiff became acquainted with Mr. F. Law-
ley, and during that acquaintance lent him consi-
derable sums of money. Mr. Lawley being in want
of money the plaintiff lent him, en the 9th of June,
1856, the sum of 4501., and on the 18th of the same,
purchased of him the horse Gemma di Vergy for
' 650/.,.giving Mr. Lawley another cheque for 2001.
A receipt for the money detail.ng the transaction
was given by Mr. Lawley, who wrote the same day
to his trainer, Dawson, at Ilsley, where the horse
then was, apprising him that be had sold it to the
plaintiff, that he was to transfer the horse to him,
and from that day to charge all the expenses to the
plaintiff. The cheques passed from Mr. Lawley to
the bank, and the money was received by Mr. Law-
ley. From that time to the present the horse was
_the property of the plaintiff, who paid the trainer,
the jockey, and all expenses incurred, and received
all his winnings. The horse, however, had not run
in the plaintiff's name, but in the name of Walker,
one reason for which was because the plaintiff was
a defaUlter, and therefore was not allowed to enter
the ring, in addition to which it was a common
practice to run horses in other names than those of
the owners. Mr. Lawley who had become so in-
volved in pecuniary difficulties as to find it neces-
sary to leave England, had previously become con-
nected with the defendant through some bill trans-
actions, and after Mr. Lawley had left the country,
the defendant brought an action against him to re-
cover the amount due to him, but no defence was
made, and judgment was allowed to go by default.
An action was issued, and Mr. Lawley's horses
were seized, and in February the horse in question
was also seized, upon which the plaintiff put in his
claim for the horse, and the simple question which
the jury bad to decide was, whe`her the horse at
that time was the property of the plaintiff or of
Mr. Lawley.
The following witnesses were called in support of
the plaintiff's case :—Capt. Little, to prove that he
lost between 1,5001. and 1,6001. ou the last Derby,
and had paid him; Mr. John Robson, of Newcastle,
who stated that he lost 2,727/. on bets with the
plaintiff, to whom he paid the account in October,
1855 ; Mr. Robert Farquhar Hook, of the thin of
Messrs. Herries, Farquhar, and Co., bankers, Lon-
don, who proved that the plaintiff opened an ac-
count with them in Oct., 1855, and that on the 9th
June, 1856, one cheque of 4501. was paid to Mr.
Lawley, and another of 2001. on the 18th of the
same month ; Mr. H. Hargraves, of London, who
stated that he purchased Gemma di Vergy at Pal-
mer's sale for 1001., that he afterwards sold it to
Mr. Lawley for 5001., that when it was sold to the
plaintiff he managed the horse for him, as he had
done before, on his own account, and for Mr. Law-
ley, and had received the winnings of Mr. Weatherby
and handed them over to the plaintiff. The plain-
tiff was also examined to prove the purchase of the
horse, and the other facts connected with it men-
tioned by Mr. Whately. He was subjected to a
long and very severe cross-examination by Mr. Ser-
geant Pigot, in the course of which he admitted that
he went on the turf in 1835, and that in 1839 he
won-of a young man named Stratford the sum of
10,0001., at a game called " b'ind hookey," at the
hotel at Strathfieldsaye ; that he got bills for the
amount and raised about 5,0001. upon them. The
money was advanced by a person named Hills, who
afterwards brought an action, but did not recover
a shilling, as the jury gave a verdict against him on
the ground that Hills was aware at the time that it
was a gambling transaction. The plaintiff admitted
that he had not refunded any of the money to Hills
but hid applied it to his own purposes ' tha he
was an insolvent in 1851 and did not pass, his debts
being 8,8111., and his assets nil; that he continued
an insolvent till 1855, when be was arrested at
Liverpool, and afterwardd passed the Insolvent
Court at Lane 'sta., but did not recollect what was
the amount of his debts then; they might have
been 18,0001. or 20,0001. He had assisted Mr.
Lawley and Mr. Stanley, and had got bills dis-
counted for Mr. Stanley by tLe defendant at the
rate of 40 to 60 per cent., and had been assisted
by Mr. Lawley with accommodation bills, had
received 4981. for Mr. Lawley, but finding he was
not at home, he paid the money into his own ac-
count, and gave Mr. Lawley a cheque for the
amount. He also stated that he had betted on his
own account, and on commission for others, that he
was a defaulter on the turf to about 1,5001., and
hal received stakes won by Geroma di Vergy to
about 1,5001. ; that he had settlements with Mr.
Hargraves in June and October last, when they ba-
lanced accounts. He knew that Mr. Lawl-y was
about to leave England, and had been to see him,
twice, but on some business with Mr. Stanley, who
was staying with Mr. Lawley. Joseph Dawson,
the trainer at Ilsley, proved the fact of the horse
being transferred by a written order from Lawley
to the plaintiff, who had paid all expenses from
that time. Mr. C. F. Skirrow, solicitor to Lori
etilk
n' s
family,'
stated that he was applied to by.
Mr. F. Lawley u
relative to his affairs, but had re-
ceivedctiona to make a claim on his be-
half for Gemma di Vergy, and had not seen Cogh-
lan since Mr. Lawley left England.
Mr. G. Payne, of London, a member of the
spoke to the value of the horse, and
common for gentlemen to run
tJoociktseybeCinlugb, very
horses in names_different to their own.

No witness( s being called on the part of the de-
fendant, Mr. Whately again addressed the court,
and expressed his regret that Mr. Lamert was not
put in the box, but doubtless there were good rea-
sons for not taking that course.
Mr. Sergeant Pigot then addressed the court on
behalf of the defendant, and called attention to the
fact that the Iransaction about the horse in ques-
tion took place on the 18th of June, 1856, when
the plaintiff knew that Mr. Lawley was about to
leave the country ; and all that took place. on that
occasion between C(lghlan and Lawley was known
only to them. TLe question was whether the
horse was the prop: ty of the plaintiff or of Mr.
Lawley's creditors, and the defendant had had it
seized for the purpose of trying that, with a view
to benefit himself and the other creditors. The horse
had acquired an increased value, which Mr. Lawley
foresaw. and thorofore it was natural for him to
have it retained in the name of the plaintiff, so as
still to have the benefit of it ; and the plaintiff was
the man of all others that he would select, for these
reasons—that he acted as his agent, getting his bill.;
discounted, lending him money, and receiving and
giving accommodation bills. Mr. Sergeant Pigot
then animadvert, d at some length, and in strong
terms, on the plaintiff's conduct in fleecing a young
man of 10,000/. at blind hookey, getting bills for
the amount, raising 5,00)1. upon them, and not re-
funding any portion, notwithstanding that the
party who discounted the bills was unable to re-
cover a shilling from the nature of the transaction.
He adverted also to his being an insolvent in 1851
for upwards of 8,0001., and again in 1855 for about
20,0001., and still a defaulter on the turf to th 3
tune of 1,5001. Under such circumstances, he put
it to the jury whether the plaintiff was entitled to
be believed, or whether his evidence could be re-
lied. on.

The learned judge summed up, and observed that
the question was as to whether this was a bona fide
transaction, and whether the sum of 6501. had been
paid by the plaintiff to Mr. Lswley for the horse
in question. If they were satilfied that the plain-
tiff had do:le so, however bad his character was or
might have been, he was entitled to have his horse ;
but if they thought that it was still Lawley's kirse
in consequence of any arrangement which he hail
with the plaintiff before he ltfc the country, then
he was not en itled to ir, but the creditors were
a
His lordship adverted to the transaction at blind
hookey, where the plaintiff won 10,000/. of young
man, and also to his insolvency in 1851 and 1855,
but said that, notwithstanding those circumstances,
if he bought and paid for any property, he was as
much entitled to it as if he were the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The antecedents of the plaintiff would
necessarily
credibility which should be given to his evidence if
have some weight as to the amlunt of
it were unsupported, but in this case his evidence
was borne out and corroborated by various wit-
nesses, and especially by the witness Hargraves.
If they disbelieved the plaintiff, they must
also disbelieve Hargraves, and regard him as a
party to the fraud, in which light his lordship could
not regard him, but as a witness of truth. Taking
all the circumstances carefully into their considera-
tion, as well as the pass-hook, cheques, receipt, and
written instructions to the trainer Dawson, it was