The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-04 00:00:00

THORPE V. COLEMAN.

In this ease the declaration in substance stated that the
plaintiff had laid a bet of 101. upon the event of the Derby in
1844; the defendant betting 101. that Campanero would win,
the plaintiff betting an equal sum that Orlando would win.
The defendant pleaded that the bet was illegal, and the plain-
tiff demurred to the plea. The demurrer was argued on the
10th of June, when Mr. Sergeant Byles, for the plaintiff, con-
tended that a bet of 101. upon a legal horse-race was recover-
able at law ; and Mr. Sergeant Channel( insisted that, although
any sum less than 101. might be so recovered, that amount
could not. The Court took time to consider its judgment,
which was now pronounced by
Lord Chief-Justice TINDAL, to the effect, that as this was
a bet for the sum of 101., the Court, without expressing an
opinion on, and certainly without having the intention of
expressing any doubt as to the propriety of, the decision of the
Court of Exchequer in the case of " Applegarth v. Cullyer,"
10 Meeson and Welsby, 723, thought that, on looking at the
provisions of the second section of the 9th Anne, c. 14, this
action could not be maintained. By that section a person who
had voluntarily paid a bet of the value of 10/., made upon cer-
tain games, of which horse-racing was one, was entitled to sue
for and recover it back within three months then next : from
which the inference was that an action to recover a bet of that
value would not lie, if the person losing should refuse to pay
it. It was obviously the intention of the Legislature that
the loser should not ultimately lose, and that the gainer
should not ultimately gain—an intention which would be
better effected, and more in accordance with the spirit of the
law, which abhors circuity of action, by holding that an action
shall not lie against the loser to recover the bet, than by hold-
ing that it must first be paid, and then be recovered back in an
action. It had been said by Mr. Sergeant Ryles that this
action was not brought to recover the money due on the bet,
but to recover damages for the breach of the promise to pay
the debt. The argument savoured too much of subtlety. The
duty of paying damages for the non-i.ayment motiey de-
pended on the duty of paying the money itself; and if a man
was not bound to pay a given sum of money, he was not liable
in damages for the neglect to pay it. It was further sug-
gested, that as the operation of the statutes against gaming
was suspended until the end of the then next session of Parlia-
ment, by the statutes of the 7th of Victoria, c. 3, and the
7th and Bth of Victoria, c. 58, the inferetice to be drawn from
thhee
hraidg f
vol.
natal or si
leyr tat.s,
paid
encoo vl
longer
r back the value n
gera
applied. But
the bet which
t the
eertslid
not think that the Acts against gaming were suspended by the
statutes referred to, except in so far as the recovery of a pecu-
niary penalty was concerned. If they were suspended, it was
for a time only. and that suspension could not confer on any
one positive rights which he had not had befo-e. The
statutes of Victoria were temporary Acts, passed to remedy a
temporary inconvenience; to the remedying that inconve-
nience they must be confined; and they must not be permitted
to have incidentally the effect of altering the law. There must,
therefore, be judgment for the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET
On Wednesday Thos. Hill, who for many years has filled the
situation of messenger in the office of the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, was placed at the bar, before Mr.
Hall, charged with being drunk and disorderly in St. James's
Park, and with assaulting the keepers in their attempting to
remove him.

James Lott, No. 3 Park-keeper, stated that about half-past
five o'clock on Tuesday evening, the prisoner came to the gate
of the inclosure opposite St. James's Palace in a state of in-
toxication, while he was speaking to some young ladies who
were then entering the grounds, and, having staggered inside
the gate without being observed, he cried out ,t your
eyes, you -7—, what business have you here?" upon which
witness desired the children to run away into the inclosure, and
seeing that the prisoner was very drunk, he told him to quit
the ground, which he refused to do. He then used the most
abusive language, and when witness attempted to remove him,
he struck him violently on the face and breast with his fist
Another officer having come to his assistance, the prisoner was
with much difficulty removed from the inclosure, and in the
struggle he attempted to punch witness in the eye with his
umbrella, at the same time challenging him to fight for daring
to lay hands upon him.
Prisoner-1 have not done half what the witness has sworn
to, but I admit when they laid hold of ine in such a manner
did offer resistance, and could do so again.
William Goodwin, a gate-keeper, stated that he was in the
lodge when the prisoner eatered the gate, and hearing the noise,
he went and saw him assault the last witness. On attempting
to remove him he laid hold of the iron railing with his left
hand, insisting to be left in the inclosure, anti brandishing the
umbrella in his right, he said to the last witness, " I'll job your
eye out." A number of persons had by this time collected,
and the prisoner being forced eut, the gate was shut, and he
was conveyed to the station-house.
Denis Farrel, another park-keeper, proved that when he
came to the assistance of the other witnesses the prisoner was

very abusive, saying they should lose their coats in the morning
for not allowing him to pass.
In answer to the charge the prisoner denied having u'ed the
foul language imputed to him, although he admitted having
been a little intoxicated, and as a matter of course he did en-
deavour to offer resistance when the park-keepers laid hold of
him in such a rough manner.
Mr. HA LL ordered the prisoner to pay a penalty of 4/., or
be sent for twenty-one days to the House of Correction.
The prisoner was then removed, and in a short time the
money being paid, he was discharged.
William Wheels, conductor of a Richmond omnibus, ap-
peared to answer a complaint preferred against him by Mr.
George Sexton Woodhouse, No. 3, New Boswell-court, Carey-
street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, for having, on the 19th of June, in
the Strand, made use of abusive and insulting language to him,
and also with committing an assault upon him.
Mr. Charnock appeared for the defendant.
On a former day another person was summoned by mistake,
and the present defendant; who was then in the body of the
Court, presented himself to have the case decided, which was
objected to, until process should be served upon him in tie usual
way, particularly as attempts had been made to practise an im-
position upon the Court.
The complainant, who conducted his own case, stated that
on the day in question he agreed with the defendant to take
him and two friends front Hampton to London for 2s. each,
and on arriving in Leicester-square his friends got out, leaving
a female, a gentleman, and himself in the vehicle. On passing
along the Strand, near to Somerset House, he offered his fare
to th defendant as he wanted to get out, and to his astonish-
ment he applied a most filthy epithet to him, at the same time
asking what he meant b i offering such a sum as 25., and upon
reminding him that it was the amount for which he had agreed,
he repeated the same disgusting language, threatening to break
his barnacles about his face, unless he gave him another shil-
ling. Witness said he should have no objection to give him
the amount he demanded if ha had not used such words in the
public streets, and having got on the road he followed the urn
nibus as it moved away, in order to ascertain the number,
when the defendant jumped off the step and struck him a
violent blow in the side, which caused him to fall and sprain
his ancle.
The defendant wished to make it appear that the complainant
had behaved indecently to th- female in the omnibus, and that
he had been appealed to by her for protection, which caused
him to abuse the complainant. He denied having struck him.
The female, Mrs. Payne. the wife of a tobacconist, wa- called
to substantiate the defence, but her evidence was contradicted
by the other passengers in the omnibu,,. It appeared, also,
that the defendant had offered money to compromise the affair.
Mr. JARDINE having commented in strong terms on the
description of the evidence brought forward by the defendant,
said he never knew such gross conduct, not only in his treat-
ment to the complainant, but also in the manner he had at-
tempted to make out his case. He had no hesitation in saying
that the complainant had satisfactorily proved the charge, and
he should, therefore, order the defendant to be sent to hard
labour in the House of Correction for two months, and his li-
cense to be revoked.