The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-22 00:00:00

EMERY V. ALBERT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is guard of one
of the Brighton vans, against the defendant, a taibir, residing in
Fleet-street, to recover the value of a coach, horses, and household
furniture, which had been seized by the Sheriff of Surrey, for a
debt due from plaintiff's brother to the defendant.
The property in question had been purchased by the plaintiff of
his brother some time before the seizure had been made for the
debt due to defendant ; but, for the defence, it was contended that
the sale was c?lllsive, for the purpose of defrauding the vendor's
creditors.
The jury rFLurned a verdict for plaintiff, thereby finding that the
sale was a bone fide one.

OAKLEY V. FAWCZTI'.

This was an action brought by an attorney to recover his bill of
costs for business transacted for defendant in the Insolvent Court
and elsewhere. Defendant pleaded a setoff in the shape df board
and lodgings for plaintiffand his family. After the plaintiff's case
had closed, it was agreed to refer the matter to arbitration, and a
juror was withdrawn.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.).

OtICATEILLONT V. GI/SON.

This was an action of trover to recover papers and books
alleged to be improperly detained by the defendant, an official
assignee. It appeared that the plaintiff became a bankrupt, but by
the consent of his creditors, the bankruptcy was superseded. In
the mean time the assignee (defendant) had taken possession of the
plaintiff's property, on the supercesslon of the fiat. Application
was made for the restoration of the books, which the defendant
refused, upon the ground that he had a lien for his services.—Ver.
diet for the plaintiff.—The Court rose at 12 o'clock.

EXCHEQUER-(THIS DAY.)

THORNTON V. PORTMAN.

The Solicitor-General, with Mr. Martyn, were Counsel for the
plaintiff; Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Butt appeared for the defendant.
This case seemed to excite the greatest interest in the sporting
world : the Court was crowded to excess at an early hour. Several
gentlemen of distinction on the turf were present, many of whom
were accommodated with seats on the bench.

It was an action brought to recover back a sum of 1,2501., paid
by the plaintiff to Mr. Portman, in discharge of a bet, lost by
Mr. Portman, to Mr. Gurney at the last Epsom Races, had, with
other members of the Jockey Club, undertaken the settlement of
Mr. Gurney's affairs, and entered into a written agreement to re-
ceive all the debts due to Mr. Gurney, and to discharge in
full all the demands against him. With that view
he obtained from Mr. Thornton, the plaintiff, the sum
for which this action was brought, and executed a mitten
agreement to pay the demands in full by the end of the Houghton
Meeting. It subsequently appeared that there was a departure
from that agreement, and in some instances no more than 10s., and
7s. in the pound were paid. In consequence of this departure from
the agreement, Mr. Thornton felt himself called upon to bring this
action.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then called witnesses to prove the
agreement :

Lord George Bentinck stated that he had no interest in the
transaction, He had been a member of the Jockey-club for severs
years, and also in the habit of attending the Epsom Races The prac-
tice of paying the money lost and won was, for the parties to attend
at Tattersall's on the Tuesday after the races, in order to settle
accounts. When a party does not pay the money he IJst,
the practice- is not to pay him. On the occasion in ques.
lion. Mr. Gurney had made bets to a considerable amount at
Epsom. He came to Tattersall's on the following Tuesday,
to settle his bets, but he paid no money. In consequence of that
many persons who had lost beta to him did not pay. He (Lord G.
Bentinck) was among the number. He refused to pay unless a
guarantee was given fur the payment of all Mr. Gurney's accounts
in full by the end of the Houghton Meeting. A guarantee to
that effect was signed on the 19th Jime 1841, and he then paid the
money. The guarantee was put into the hand of Colonel Anson,
senior steward. It was signed by Mr. Portman, the defendant.
He recommended all who had lost to Mr. Gurney, to pay also, when
that guarantee was given. The Houghton Meeting generally falls
in the month of November. It always commences in the month
of October, and generally terminates in the next month. That
year it terminated on Saturday, the 30th October. The settlement
at Tattersalls was consequently to take place on the 2d November.
He was present when accounts were produced at a meeting of the
Jockey-club at Tattersall's, but the defendant did not appear.
Cross-examined—There was a Mr. Dixon, who had lost money
to Mr, Gurney. The balance sheet of Mr. Gurney's account was
produced, His affairs seemed on paper to be a winning game, but
practically it was a losing game.--(Laughter.) Two persons
named Davis and Atkins had lost money to Gurney, and refused
to pay in consequence of the rumour that Gurney refused to pay
his losses. This was the first case of this description he had
known. The course taken with reference to Mr. Gurney's affair
was sanctioned by the majority of the Jockey-club, and among
others by Lord Exeter, Colonel Peel, Mr Gregory, and Lord
stradbrook. He (witness) was of opinion, that the stewards of the
Jockey.club should have enforced the payment of the full amount
of the debts due to Gurney, as well as those lie owed. The
rules of the Jockey-club are only binding on those who bet at
Newmarket, except with the consent of the patties.

Mr. Edward Hind stated that he had won 5251. from Mr. Gur-
ney, and had seen him at Tattersall's, but received no money from
him. He received subsequently 1851. from Colonel Peel, on
account of Sir. Gurney's debt. He had received no more since,
but was satisfied with the amount received. In cross-examination,
he said he received only 7s. in the pound, and signed the release
two months ago.

Mr. Tsurstuuß then addressed the jury on behalf of the defen
dant, when

Lord Mumma summed up, and stated that Mr. Thornton was
not in law boned to pay the 1,2501., but If he had chosen to do so
he had a perfect right to declare the terms on which he would pay
it, and those terms should have been strictly conformed to.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da.
wages 1,2501.

The SOLICITOR.GENERAL informed the Court that money was not
Mr. Thornton's object, but he wished to assert the principle, and
begged to inform the Court that it was Mr. Thornton's intention to
band_over the amount to Christ's Hospital. (That announcement
was received with loud cheers.)

INSOLVENT COURT-(THIS DAY)