The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-09 00:00:00

Where you won it is a different thing, and you aro not f
then bound to answer.

Examination continued—l had no arrangement with
Hill about any bets on Gaper. I saw Hill on the Derby
clay at Epiona several times. I made bets with a good
many people on that day about the race, but I cannot
recollect who they were. I did not bet with his Lord-
ship about Gaper or any one else on his behalf on that
day that lam aware of. I did not make any arrange -
ment with Hill about " hedging" my bets on Gaper. I
had no bets with the defendant about his horse, and I
am not aware that anyapplication was made to his Lor-
dship on.the subject of any bets about this horse. lam
quite certain I never caused any application to be made
to him.

Baron PARKE—Have you had no bets with the de-
fendant about this horse Gaper? Witness—None, what-
ever, my Lord.
Mr. PETERSDORFF—Did you not make a bet of 20,0001.
to 3,000 E with Hill about Gaper ? Witness—lf I answer
that question I feel that I should implicate myself.
Baron PARKE—Not if you lost the bet.
Mr. PEACOCK—On behalf of the defendant I should
object to his answering the question upon another ground.
Baron PARKE—Very well, but he must answer as to
any bet he may have lost.
Witness—l lost so many bets upon that race, that I
cannot recollect distinctly any thing about: them. It
is impossible for me to say anything positive about it.
Baron PARKE said that some particular bet should be
mentioned.

Mr. PETERSDORFF—WeII, did you not lose a bet of
3,0001. to 20,0001. ?

Witness —lf I understand, you, my Lord, you
said I was not bound to answer any questions that I
thought would affect me. I think this one will, and
therefore I decline to answer it.—(A laugh.)
Baron PARKE—It cannot affect you to state Wlgat bets
you lost. Witness—Then I lost a great many. They
want me to say that I had this bet with the defendant,
but it is not the case. I had no bet with his Lordship
about Gaper.
Mr. PETERSDORFF—I ask you whether you had not
the bet I have mentioned with some one ? Witness—l
decline to answer the question.
Baron PARKE intimated that the question should le
answered.

Witness—l have laid so many bets that I cannot re-
collect them all. The Learned Counsel told the jury
that I had had 10,000/. to 1001., and that I lost. Now,
I want to know in what way lam to answer. I can-
not tell all the bets, I lost so many, but I wish to protect
my friends.—(Laughter.) _ _

Baron PARKE—You cannot claim protection for your
friends. You can only do so for yourself.
Witness—l did not lay that bet myself, but I wish not
to implicate myself or my friends.
Baron PARKE—You must answer all questions that do
not implicate yourself, and without reference to any one
else, or how it may implicate them. Witness—Then,
my Lord, I claim the protection of the Court under the
fresh Act of Parliament.—(Laughter.)
Baron PARSE (smiling)—But that Act is rather
against you.
The witness at length said that he told a person to
hedge some of his bets for him, his object being to get
out of the scrape he had got into by his betting
20,0001 to 2501. against him • and he said he
thought it was a very good friend indeed who could
assist him in this respect. He went on to say that his
friend did " hedge" for him, but he was not present
when he made the bets. They might have been made
on the Downs or in the town of Epsom. After the race
he gave this friend money to settle his bets, and he had
no doubt that he did so. The sum might be 1001. or
it might be 1,000/, but his betting-book upon that race
would tell the exact amount. He had sought for that
book before he came from home, but could not find it,
and he did not know where it was. Mr. Gully arranged
his accounts for him, and he gave him the balance.
Cross-examined—l should say that the book I cannot
find contained all the bets I lost upon that event, and,
therefore, if I had won any bets the book would have
shown it. lam not in the habit of keeping my betting
books any length of time after they are settled. The
money that I handed over to my friend was to satisfy a
number of bets, and not any particular one. Some of
the bets I settled myself. I laid bets against Gaper and
hedged some of them myself. The bets on the Derby
are settled on the following Tuesday at Tattersall's. All
bets on the Dt-rby are " play or pay," and where a horse
is withdrawn the bets are paid. If a horse dies bets are
paid, but if his owner dies they are not. I have seen the
plaintiff, but am not acquainted with him.
Re-examined—l did not bring my action to recover
back the money I had lost. I cannot say how much mo-
ney I paid to Mr. Gully. I have settled with Hill, and
have paid him perhaps as much as 4001. or 5001,
Mr. Henry Hill was then called, but he refused to be
sworn, and said that his solicitor had advised him to
do so.

Baron PARKE said his solicitor had advised him very
wrongly, and he must be sworn.
The witness said his reason for refusing was, that he
was a defendant in an action for the very same bet.
After some discussion, the witness was sworn, and he
underwent a very 1011.,' examination, in order to prove
that he had made the bet of 20,000 i to 3,0001. with Mr.
Day, as agent of the defendant, but he did not admit the
fact. He admitted that he had hedged some bets for
Day about Gaper, and, in the course of his examination,
he said that the amount of penalties sought to be re-
covered from him by qui tam actions were as much as
between 50,01U01. and 60,0001., 12,0001. of which was for
this very bet. He had never heard the defendant say
that he had made a bet of 20,0001. to 3,0001. against
Gaper, but he believed he had done so. Gaper lost the
race. lle said that he received so much money at the
settling that he really could not now tell what he re-
ceive, or from whom he received it.

Mr. JAMES —Have you brought your betting-book
with you? Witness—Oh, no, it is burnt.

, .
Mr. JAMES—When was it burnt? Witness—As soon
as I heard of these qui tam actions.—(Great laughter,
in which Mr. Baron Parke joined heartily.)
Baron PARKE—I suppose your memory went with
your book.—(Laughter.) Witness—Yes, my Lord.
Mr. JAMES—Then you burnt your memory with your
book? Witness—Yes.—(Much laughter.)
Mr. John Gully was then examined by Mr. PLATT—
He commenced by requesting the Court to protect him
from answering any questions that might implicate him.
He then said that he had not yet been served with any
writ in those qui tam actions, but he said ho understood
it was mentioned in the House of Commons that he was
to be. He had known John Day for many years, and he
asked him to hedge some large sums for him about
Gaper, and he took a bet of 20,0001. to 3,0001. about
Gaper with the defendant. He had several bets
with other persons also about the same horse.
He took the bet of Lord George, and witness himself
was responsible for it. He did not make this bet for
Day, but for himself. He subsequently let Day have that
bet, but originally it was made as his own account, and
not on that of Day..
Baron PARKE—Then we are to understand that you
took this bet of Lord George on your own account, and
afterwards handed the bet to Day ? Witness—Yes, my
Lord. When I offered the bet to Day, he refused it for
some time, as the odds were not enough for him. Al-
though, however, he eventually took the bet, I was
responsible to Lord George for it, and if Day
had not settled with him, I must have paid
it myself. I may state that a circumstance of
that sort occurred to me this year with Colonel
Anson. I had made abet of 2,400/. to 300/ with Colonel
Higgins. The odds were not enough for Colonel Anson.
and therefore I had to pay the bet myself. I did not
settle the particular bet about which I have been asked
' with John Day. I had seen Day at Epsom that morning
before I made the bet with Lord. George, and it may
have been in consequence of what passed between us
that I made the bet. It is, however, not possible at this
distance of time that I can tell whether I might not have
made the bet without such conversation, but, if it had
been in consequence of our conversation, it would be a
very customary proceeding. When the race was won
Day stood the whole of this bet.
By Mr. PEACOCK—What I meant by the last answer
was, that Day stood to me and I stood to Lord George.
I alone was responsible to his Lordship for the bet. If
either party to a bet dies, the bet is off, and if I had
died, this bet of mine with Lord George would have been
off, and vice versa.
Baron PARKE—Had Day anything to do with Lord
George about that bet? Witness—Nothing whatever.
I was responsible to Lord George, and his Lordship was
responsible to me.
By Mr. PEAcoCK—If Day had died, the bet between
Lord George and myself would have stood, and the re-
sponsibility of Day to me would have ceased.
By a Juror—Then you must have paid Lord George?
Witness—Of course.
Baron PARKE—Then you took the bet for yourself,
and not in any way as the agent of Day. Witness—Yes,
my Lord.
Baron PARKE—If such a thing were possible as that
you were unable to pay the bet, would Lord George have
had any remedy against Day? Witness—UndOubtedly not.
Baron PARKE—There is an end of the case, then. The
simple question is, whether, after what Mr. Gully has
stated, he made the bet for Day or for himself ?
Mr. Gully—Lord George would not have let me off in
the event of Day not paying. I did not settle the bet
with Lord George in a direct manner ; and, as far as I
can recollect, I cannot possibly say how it was settled.
I desired Day to pay part of the money over to Hill.
There is no doubt it was settled, but I cannot tell in
what way.
Baron PARKE—Then you told Day to pay part
of the money to Hill ? Mr. Gully—Yes. It is com-
mon to transfer bets.

Baron PARKE—But the question is, whether you
would have made the bet with Lord George if Day had
not spoken to you about hedging ? Mr. Gully—Very
likely not ; but I might.
A Juror—Day stated that he employed Gully as an
agent to hedge for him.
Baron PARKE—Yes, he said so, certainly.
A Juror—At the time of making this bet, did you tell
Lord George that it was for Day ? Mr. Gully—No, I
did not.
Baron PARKE—Then, I understand you to say that
whether Day took that bet or not, was dependent on a
subsequent arrangement with him ? Mr. Gully—
Certainly.
By a Juror—l felt bound to offer this bet to Day in a
friendly way. lam not a recognised agent for betting.
Baron PARKE—Did you consider yourself at the time
yon made this bet the recognised agent of Day ? Mr.
Gully—Certainly not.
Baron PARKE—This, then, is the state of the case:—
The plaintiff in this action has to make out that it was
with Day, or with Gully, as the agent of Day, that the
defendant made this bet, but Mr. Gully sta•es that he
made the bet on his own account. The plaintiff,
therefore, fails in establishing his case. As to the pay-
ment of the money, there is reasonable evidence for the
jury to conclude that it was paid.
The jury then immediately returned a verdict for the
defendant. There was a slight demonstration of appro-
bation, which was momentai ily repressed.