The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-10 00:00:00

00000 ••••

LAW INTELLIGENCE

QUEEN'S BEN C

THIS DAY.)

(Sitting in Banco after Term.)
GREYILLE V. CUAPMAN.

• It will be recollected that this action was tried some time back,
when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 3001. damages.
was an action for a libel which appeared in the Sunday
Times newspaper, of which the defendant is the registered
publisher, and the libellous matter complained of was to
the effect that the plaintiff bad entered a horse to, run
a certain race at Epsom, which horse he had subse-
quently withdrawn, in order, as asserted in the defendant's
paper, to obtain a mean and unfair advantage over other persons,
helthe plaintiff) having laid heavy bets with divers persons on the
event of the race, and by thus withdrawing his horse, secured to
himself large winnings on these bets: At the time of trial a justi-
ficat:on was put on the pleas by the defendant, but this was
negatived by the jury. Subsequently a rule for a new trial
Was granted upon two grounds :—the first being that
the plaintiff, by his own evidence, presented himself to
the Court under legal disability to claim redress for any in-
jury done to his character, horse racing transactions having no
claim to protection, which the Court now held to be wholly un-
tenable; and; on the second ground, that an improper question
was allowed by the Court to be put to Lord George Fitzroy, a wit.
ness of great importance, and who, as a member of the Jockey
Club, described the way in which they proceeded to settle disputes
whenever they unfortunately occurred. The question then was,whe-
ther the opinion of this witness should or should not be taken, as to the
morality of the rules enunciated by the Jockey Club, thus trans-
ferring to a witness the privileges which attached solely and pecu-
liarly to a jury. But looking at the whole of the proceedings as
regarded this witness, the Court held that such was not the case.
'he libel asserted that the plaintiff; having entered a horse know.
InglY and unfairly, did soand knowingly and unfairly withdrew
it, for the purpose of improperly gaining money. The plaintiff
oral Proved, by the evidence, to be a member of the Jockey Club,
and one of the rules of that Club was, that any
member was endowed with the privilege of' withdrawing
his horse at any time he likes, before the actual start for the race.
The witness said that the Jockey Club, in deciding any differences
that might from time to time unhappily arise, were always go.
serried in their decisions by the rules of equity and justice ; and
When asked, on cross-examination, whether the rules of the Club
did not yield to a subscriber the sole right of withdrawing his
horse, and that too without assigning any reason whatever
for so doing, his answer was distinctly in the affirrna.
Live. When the Learned Judge asked him whether, in his
oPinionsthat would be according to justice and equity, with the view
of ascertaining whether the Jockey Club would sanction a proceed-
ing wherein a subscriber acted in this way from a fraudulent mo-
tive, the witness had most properly answered that any person, sub-
scriber or non-subscriber to the Jockey Club, acting in this way
would be doing that which Wail most dishonourable and improper,
and would undoubtedly incur merited reprobation and disgrace in
the eyes of every honest and high-minded man. Thus guarded
and qualified, the Court held that the question was wholly free
from objection, and in fact necessary, in order properly to under-
stand the tenor of the evidence. The judgment of the Court, as
delivered by Lord Denman, therefore, was, that upon both grounds
the rule must be dtscharged.