The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, June 24.
( Nisi Prius Sittings at Guildhall, before Lord ABINGER, and

- a London Jury.) ....
HOWELL V. WATTS.-THE GURIS7EY AFFAIR.

Mr. HOGGINS appeared in this case for the plaintiff, and
Mr. HUMFILEY for the defendant.
This seas an action to recover the amount of a bill of ex-
change for 3001. at six months after date.
It appeared that the bill in question was one of several which
had gained existence as a result of what is known as the
" Gurney affair," in connexion with certain doings at and
after the " Derby day" of 1841. On the arrival of the Derby
settlement, as will be remembered, Mr. Gurney, in conse-
quence of some announced defaults by parties with whom he
had had bets on the event, declared himself unable to meet all
the claims upon himself ; and it was stated upon the present
occasion that his " book," supposing all the bets he had won
had been paid, would have yielded him a profit of 2,000/.—in
fact, that his gains would have been 12,0001., whilst his
losses would not have amounted to more than 10,0001. As
soon as Mr. Gurney's declaration had become known, re-
ference was had to one of the rules of the Jockey Club,
which states that in all cases where a party is unable to pay
his losses, the parties who may have lost bets to him
are not to be called upon to pay such losses ; in
other words, a rule which is effect says, that he who does not
pay shall not receive. Under the peculiar circumstances of the
ease, three gentlemen, of the names of Clarke, Beales, and
Portman, were appointed, in the instance of Mr. Gurney, fur
the purpose of arranging his betting affairs, they being em-
powered thereupon to receive such bets as they could obtain,
and were equally empowered by Mr. Gurney to make arrange-
ments for the payment of, std to pay as far as their receipts
would allow them, the bets upon which he had been a
loser. Amongst other persons with whom Mr. Gurney hail
had bets, winning some and losing others, was a gentleman
of the name of Watts, and, upon the day of the settling, on
their accounts being balanced, it turned out that there was
the sum of 1.1751. due from the defendant. In the course of
their arrangements the trustees of Gurney wrote to the de-
fendant, informing him of what had taken place, and request-
ing the payment of the above amount, as they had undertaken
to pay their prinicipal's losses at the ensuing Houghton Meet-
ing. The result of this communication was, that the defendant
gave four several bills, payable at different periods. Of
these bills the one forming the subject of the present action
was one, the first of the series having been regularly paid
on its arrival at maturity. Between that period, however, and
the day on which the present bill had become due, the de-
fendant had bean informed that the trustees had failed in their
performance of the agreement with respect to the payment of
some of Mr. Gurney's bets, and he, consequently, having
given the bills upon the faith of that promise, declined to ho-
nour the second of the bills.

The main ground of defence was—first, that the plaintiff
had not given consideration for the bill ; and that if he had,
then that he had done so with the full knowledge of the cir-
cumstances under which the bill had been given. The witness
who was called to establish these facts, however, distinctly
proved that the plaintiff had discounted the bill for him, re-
taining only the amount of interest, at the rate of 5 per cent.;
and he further stated that the plaintiff, at the time of the dis-
count, was totally ignorant of the nature of the bill, or under
what circumstances it had been given—namely, that it had
been given in part payment of a gambling debt.
The Jury, the defendant having thus failed in proving his
pleas, under the direction of the Learned Judge, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff for 3071., including interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROMARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Major Smith was summoned before Mr. Hardwick, for an
assault upon William Fraser, a footman, in the service of a lady
named Ingram, residing in Upper Brook-street.
The statement of the footman was, that at a ball on Tuesday
evening, at the Hanover-square Rooms, his mistress's coach-
man pulled in before Major Smyth's cab ; that Major Smyth
was angry at this, as he elaimod the precedence on account of
being in the suite of the Prince of Capua, whose carriage had
just prec'ded him; that on Major Smyth going up to the win-
dow of his mistress's carriage for the purpose of obtaining the
name, he (complainant) tendered a card with his mistress's
name and address on it, which card was knocked out of his
hand by the Major. While stooping to pick up the card he
received a blow from Major Smyth, and this so far irritated him
as to make him say to Major Smyth, "Go to —." Major
Smyth then struck ..complainant several more blows, and this
constituted the assault. •

Major Smyth, in explanation, said it was the etiquette to
give way to Royal carriages, and of course to those carriages
in their suite. He was following the Prince of Capua's car-
riage, when another carriage drove in before him. Finding
the servants in altercation, he interfered, upon which the com-
plainant called out insolently "-Who the are you?" De-
fendant left his cab and went up to the carriage to get the
lady's name. The complainant continuing his insolence, thrust
a parcel of cards before him, which defendant admitted he
knocked out of the man's hands. The man then made use of
a vulgar expression which no gentleman could brook, and de-
fendant sti u k him.

Major Smyth's servant proved that the words " Go to —"
were used by the footman, betore he was struck by his master.
Mr. HARDWICK was of opinion that so much provocation
had been used towards Major Smyth by the complainant, as in
a great measure to excuse the assault.—Complaint dismissed.