The Sun.
London, England, 1842-08-05 00:00:00

COURT CIRCULAR.

~Vixnson Tilt] RSDA Y.—The Queen, and Prince Albert,
and the Hereditary Prince and Princess of Saxe Cebourg
Gotha enjoyed their accustomed walk in the forenoon, and the
Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal were taken out
as usual.

The Queen Dowager attended Divine Service this morning,
in St. George's Ci.apel Royal. The Countess of Sheffield
and the Honourable William Ashley, were in Waiting on her
Majesty. The Bev. W. C. Knyvett officiated. In the after-
noon the Queen, the Queen Dowager, the Duchess of Kent.
and the Princess of Saxe Coburg', in one carriage, left the
%tale for a drive in the Great Park and the Forest drives,
714r)wed by the Viscountess Jocelyn, the Countess of Sheffield,
and the Maids of Honnur in another carriage; Prince Albert,
the Prince of Saxe Coburg, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Jocelyn,
Colonel Wylde, and Captain Hood riding on horseback.
Her Royal highness the Duchess of Kent, Lady Charlotte
Dundas, Lord and Lady Haddo, and Hon. Henry and Mrs.
Ashley, will join the Royal Dinner party this evening.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge arrived at
Cainbridge Uouse on Wednesday evening from his reside Lee
at Kew. HT Royal Higlinei.s returned to Kew yesterday.
Captain Allen had al interview with Lord Stanley, yester-
day, at the Cotodial-office.

Dehany, Solicitor to the Excise, had an interview with
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yesterday, at his official re-
sidence, in Downing-street.
The Brazilian Minister transacted business, yesterday, at the
Izoi oign -office.
Air. Walker had an• interview with Lord Stanley, at the Co-
lonial-office, yesterday.

EXTRAORDINART CASZ.—Wednesday afternoon, an
inquest was held at the Rose, Snows-fiefs, Bermondsey,
before Mr.• Carter, Coroner for Surrey, on view of the
body of Charles Wilkins, 32 years of age, lately re-
biding .No. :18, Snows-tields, and following the
occupation of a waterman, who committed suicide
under the following circumstances ;—lt appeared by
the evidence of" several witnesses that the deceased
and his wife „had latterly lived very . uncomfortably
together, frequently having quarrels in consequence
of his suspecting her of carrying on an impro-
per intimacy with one of his brothers, and that he bad
T,•peateillv, in the presence-of the witnesses, charged her
with infidelity. On the 26th ult, the wife went down to
Gravesend, ostensibly fin. the benefit of her health, accom-
panitA by three Children, her nephew;,, where she took
last the deceased w6nt down to see
lodgings. On Sunday
her, and on his return home, about ten o'clock at night, he
appeared to be much distressed in his mind, and then
stated to his landlord that he had been down to Gravesend
and had discovered that his brother was staying with his
wife, and that he was much disturbed at it; that he had
twine thought he would throw himself from the steamer
into the river on his way up to London. On Monday af-
ternoon, he came home -to his dinner, and afterwards
hifiloWil on his bA, and requested his mother-in-
law to bring him his tea at five o'clock. On her
going into his room at that hour for the purpose, she
discovered him hanging, from the top rail of his
bedstead, suspended by a ' silk handkerchief. She im-
mediately gave an alarm, and assistance being pro-
cured, he was cut down, and medical aid from Guy's
Hospital sent fi.)r ; but in vain, life being quite extinct.
It appears that a fatality attaches to the deceased's fa-
mily, as not long since two •of his brothers committed
suicide, one by cutting his throat, and the other by
drowning himself. It was also stated that bis wife had
twice befobeen married, and "that both of her former
husbands Md also destroyed themselves. The Jury
returned a verdict of Temporary Insanity."
THE INCOME-TA,x,..—WoRR FOR THR LAWYERS:—
IR the cause of-ilVer v. Silver, decided on the 13th of •
July by the VieosPhaneellor, his Honour stated that so
many questions would arise in the construction of the
Income-tax Act that unless it were continued bey Mid
ihe three 3-ears, there would nut be time to dispose of
all the questions that would come before the Court.—
Worcestershire Chronicle..
A IHOW TO CARVE MUTTON.-"-- Shall I cut this loin
of mtmuttonsaddleitise ?.., said u.gg at 1 eulan. ••said
one of his guests, cut it bridlewise, kr then I may
chance to get .a bit in my mouth."

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE, .
HOME ClRCUlT—Guildford, August 2.
(Before Lord ARINGER and a Special.jury.)
LIBEL.—GREVILLE V. CHAPMAN AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by the Hon. 'Mr. Gre-.
vale, against the defendants, who . are the proprietors:of
the Sunday Times newspaper, for publishing a libel upon
the plaintiff, in that paper. .The libel complained of was
contained itfa report of the proceedings of the last Ep-
som Races, and the plaintiff was accused-of having with-
draWnhis horse Canadian from that rau, in order that
he might win several large bets that he had made against
him. The defendants put several pleas upon the record,
which were, in fact, tantamount to a plea of justification.
Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Peacock were for
the plaintiff. The Solicitor-General, who was specially
retained, with Mr. Platt, and Mr. Taylor, were for the
defendants.

Mr. MESMER addressed the Jury, and said he had
the honour to appear on behalf of the plaintiff, who was
a gold...inlet' connected with some of the first families in
the kingdom, who had for several years filled the
office or joint-clerk to her Majesty's Privy Council,
and who had for many years enjoyed the esteem of a
numerous circle of friends, but who felt himself com-
pelled to come before a Jury in vindication of his
honour, to complain of the publication of a foul libel
and calumfly upon him by the defendants, who were
the proprietors of a newspaper called the Sunday Times,
They were not content with publishing the offensive ar-
ticle now complained of, but when they were asked
to give a contradiction or explanation, they not only
refused to do so, but inserted another article
in. a subsequent publication, in which they defended the
original statement, and declared it to be true. The
charges made against the defendant were of a most seri-
c'ius character, and affected him deeply as a man of
honour, and he loofted forward to the result of this ac-
tion with the deepest anxiety. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to state the facts of the case, as they
afterwards appeared in evidence ; and having read the
libel, he said that the plaintiff was accused of having
betted large sums of money against his horse Cana-
dian, and that just b,fore the race he withdrew-him
from the contest, in order that he might win the money
in this dishonourable and disgraceful manner ; and
this was not the extent of the charge Made
against him, for he' was likewise accused of
having lamed Mr hors', or - caused him to be
lamed, in order to afford a colourable pretext for
• withdrawing him from the race. Having detailed the
facts, the Learned Counsel said that Mr. Greville re-
pelled with scorn the imputations cast upon him. He
had no means of discovering who• his calumniator was,

and he had taken the only course left open to him, of
appealing to the law, and daring his assailant to the
proof of the charges made against him. The de-
fendants had accepted the challenge; and the Jury would
have to decide whether the defendants had any ground
for the foul attack they hail thought fit to make upon
the plaintiff. Ile was not fearful of the issue, and
he was glad that the defendants had met the case in
this manner, because it would give him an opportunity
of ascertaining upon what foundation they had made
the charges against him, and to see what proof they
would offer in support of these charges. The Learned
Counsel concluded by saying that the plaintiff did not
seek for vindictive damages, but when such a foul charge
was made against him, he did expect that the Jury
would let the, world know, by their verdict, what was
their opinion of the charge, and that they would give
such damages as would satisfy all who knew the plain-
tiff; that it was a foul and calumnious attack that had
been made upon him, without the slightest ground or
semblance of truth for its foundation.

The libel was then put in and read. It was in sub-
stance to the effect above stated. The proprietorship of
the paper was also admitted.
Montgomery Dilly was then called. He deposed as
follows :—I have been for many years trainer to Mr.
Greville, and I keep stables for him at Littleton, in
Hampshire. I remember the horse Canadian, and I
saw him win a race at Newmarket ; and upon my re-
commendation he was afterwards purchased by • Mr.
Greville of the Duke of Grafton, to whom he then be-
longed, and the horse was brought to Littleton, and
placed under my care. He was engaged in the Derby
of this year, and he was regularly trained and put in
condition for the race. On the 21st of May, the SattPi-
day before the Epsom race week, Mr. Greville came
down to see the horse with Nat, the jockey who was
to ride and he was taken to a paddock and ridden
by Nat in the presence of tho plaintiff, and I afterwards
received instructions to send him to Epsom on the fol-
lowing Monday, and the plaintiff then returned tb town.
On the Sunday the horse was exercised by a lad named
Humby, and soon after the horse was brought home I
received a communication which led me to the stable, and
I then found that the horse was lame on the near side
hock. I immediately sent a communication to Mr.
Greville, and the next morning Mr. Field, the veteri-
nary surgeon came to look at the horse ; and after he
had examined him, he was placed in a van and was
conveyed to Epsom. The horse still continued lame,
and he was seen by Mr. Day the trainer, and Mr. Ste-
phenson, the trainer to the Duke of Grafton. He was
very lame on the Tuesday morning, and was evidently
quite unfit to run a race, He was lame for several weeks
after this, and forfeited his engagements at Ascot and
Goodwood, and other places where he was to have run.
There was no appearance of injury to the leg, and I could
not account for the lameness.

Cross-examined—l have been a trainer to Mr. Gre•
vine since 1837. Ile has been many years connected
with the turf, and keeps several race-horses, but I do
not know anything about his bets. I sometimes bet
myself, but I did not bet anything upon Canadian in this
race. Mr. Greville's jockey rode the horse on Saturday,
and at that time he was perfectly sound, and no sign of
lameness was discovered until the Sunday, when the
horse was removed from one side of the stall to the
other. He was very lame on the Sunday, and he was
not in a state to run ; and when Mr. Field came to see
him on. the Monday morning, if there was any difference
he was more lame. Mr. Field directed that the leg i
should bo bathed with cold lotions, and he consented
that he should be taken to Epsom. The horse was
placed in a van, and was taken to Kingston by the
railway, and from thence by post-horses to Epsom,
when he was taken to the stables of Mr. Wood.
The time occupied in taking the horse to Epsom was
about four hours, and when, we got there I did not tell
any person about the horse being lame. A. person
named Wood was present, but I did not tell him anything
about the lameness. It is not usual for trainers to tell
if there is anything the matter with their horses. There
is generally betting at Tattersall's on the Sunday and
the Monday before the Derby day. On the Tuesday
any person seeing the horse would not have known that
he was lame, and I had him walked about on the pad-
dock for an hour and a half or so, where every body
could see him. I think he trotted on the paddock, and
when he trotted he went lame. I still kept my
counsel, and did not tell any one that the horse was
lame. lie was still in the same state at twelve o'clock
on the Tuesday, and on that day he was declared not to
start. I knew that the horse was not to start between
eight and nine o'clock on the Tuesday morning. Mr.
Greville came to see him on that morning, and asked
me' how the horse was, and I told him that he was still
lame; and it was then stated that he was not to run, but
this was. nclt made kno.vn publicly until one or two
o'clock. I did not hear any bets made upon Canadian on
that day or,at any other time. Mr. Wood did not say
to me, "Well, have you brought Canadian to win the
Derby ?" neither did I reply, " I suppose so, for he has
taken.his last. gallop at. Littleton." The horse was not
examined by any veterinary surgeon at Epsom either on
the Monday or the Tuesday. Mr Field recommended
that the horse should be bled and have a dose of physic.
Canadian had won. three ' times before I and Mr. Gre-
ville Went to see him. Hiked the horseand recommended
hith to•Mr: Greville, and he decided upon purchasing him.
Re-examined—lt would be a breach of confidence
in a trainer to tell any one that his horse was lame. On
the Tuesday morning Mr. Greville told Nat, his jockey,
.that ho might ride Lord Chesterfield's horse, as he did
not think Canadian would be able to start. I do not know
of horses being lame shortly before -a race, and rttraning and
-winning the race. Ino not knol that I ever had a horse fall
'lame- to suddenly as Canadian did. I have known them to cb
so-in their-gallops, but not in this manner.
• • •By the Cooler—The jockey was at Littleton on the Saturday
two or three hours, and I went to the place where the horse
was sweated, and when ke first began to run he was apparently
perfectly sound.. lie went about four miles in his sweat, and
when it was over I did not observe any difference in his gait.
Mr. William Dilly, examined by Mr. PEACOCK —I am
brother to the last witness, and assist him in training race-
horses. I saw Canadian on the Sunday before the Epsom race,
and observed him being ridden by a boy, named Ilumby, to
exercise. \When he was brought in I did not see that he was
lame. The boy rode him for about three quarters of an hour,
and when he was put in the stable I went to examine him, and
found that he was lame in the near hind leg, but no cause for
the lameness was perceptible. In consequence of this I went
to London, and saw Mr. Greville, anti Mr. Field, the veteri-
nary surgeon, was sent for, and he accompanied me back to
Littleton to see the horse, and I then found that he was lamer
thaap when I left him. The witness then went on to detail
the facts stated by his brother, and confirmed his evidence.
Cross-examined—The horse was walked to Winchester race
course to be exercised, and it was walked and galloped about.
We do not sweat horses on Sunday.—(Laughter!') After the
boy had galloped the horse a short time, he got off and led him.
When a horse is strained the part generally swells. After the
lameness was discovered, I felt down the horse's legs, but could
not detect any inflammation, ur heat, or sprain, or any thing to
which I could attribute the lameness. The foot was quite
pprfeet when we had the she taken off. I got to Epsom on
the Tuesday, but I did not hear that the horse was not to run
until I had been some time upon the course. I had no inter-
est to see Canadian at that time.

By the COURT—There was no appearance of external injury
on the horse's legs.
George Humby, examined by Mr. THESIGER—I was stable-
boy and groom to the plaintiff, and attended upon Canadian
at Littleton. I rode .him on the Sunday for two or three
hours, and when I took him to the stable to dress him, the
other servant, She,man, pointvd out to me that the horse was
lame, tad I observed that he flinched when he was made
to mr,ve from one side to the other. I immediately informed
Mr. Dilly of the circumstance. The horse was taken to Epsom
on the Monday, and I accompanied hire, and observed that he
favoured the near hind leg. On the Tuesday, at Epsom, 1
rode the horse at a walking pace in the paddock for about an
hoar and a half, and I found that he still continued lame.
By the Soracrron-GENERAL—There were not many other
horses in the paddock at the time, but they were all horses
that were to run at the races. I don't know that. Cana-
dian was so lame that any one oho saw him could per-
Ceire it. There were several people, trainers, and dif-
ferent sorts of persons, looking at the horses, but I did not hear
any one remark that my horse was lame. Ido not k,rirouteualviy.
I walked him about for an hour and a half on the
Several persons looked at the horse in the stable, but I did not
say any thing about his being lame.
Re-examined—Mr. Greville had another horse called Pale-
mon that was to run at these races.
By Lord ABIMOI.R—
-• ' I did not find out that the horse was
lame until he:,was taken into the stable after I had exercised
him on the Sunday. Sherman first found oat that the horse
was lame. I began to diess the horse, but I did not discover
that he was lame.
Thomas Sherman—l am in the service of the plaintiff, and I
remember Canadian being exercised en the Sunday before
Epsom races, and I assisted Humby to clean him after he was

THE rSUN, LONDON, FRIDAY *EVENTYI,4G, AUGUST 5, 1842

brought in. When I went to turn the horse from one side or •
the stall to the other I discovered that he was lame in the near
leg behind.
Cross-examined—l don't know but what Canadian is now
at Littleton. I saw him on Tuesday last, and he was
not lame then. He was lame a month ago, and he was
lame for several weeks after the Derby, but no
one attended upon him, and nothing was done to him except
that the leg was bathed with cold lotions. No veterinary surgeon
attended upon him. I could not find any hurt or swelling when
I examined the horse, and I don't recollect that I ever saw such
a lameness before.

Mr. PLATT—Was it not the like mange ? Witness—l can't
say that exactly.
Mr. Wm. Field—l am a veterinary surgeon, and I was sent
for by the plaintiff, who wished me to go to Littleton
to see his horse, Canadian; and he told me if I
thoug,tt it would not hurt the horse, that he should
like tin to go to Epsom. On Monday, the 23d inst., I went
down to Littleton to the place where the horse was. Mr.
Greville told me that he wished the horse to run, and that lie
should see him at that place, and judge for himself whether llc
was capable of running. 1 found the horse lame, in my
opinion from injury to the near hock. There was a slight
appearance of heat on that part. I made a careful examini-
tom, and observed that there was more apparent lameneis
when be turned, than when he walked straight. He was not
in a fit state to run a race, but 1 considered his being re-
moved to Epsom would not Burt him. I prescribed
the application of cold lotions to the leg. 1 have no
doubt that the injury was of a character very likely
to show itself more after exercise, and when the horse got cool.
Having prescribed for the horse, I returned to London and saw
Greville, and told him in!, opinion that the injury might
be speedily removed, but, in the then state of the horse, I told
him it would injure the hone if he was . started fur the race.
On the Tuesday I saw Canadian at Epsom, and the lameness
then appeared to be in the same state. When the horse was put
into the van to go to Epsom, he was lame.
Cross-examined—l thought the horse might recover in two
or three weeks, but he would certainly nut have been well
enough to run for the Derby ; and I believe I expressed this
opinion to Dlr. Greville on the Monday. The horse was what
1 should call very lame, and not competent to run for the
Derby with any chance of winning, and I said this to the
plaintiff, and I think he told me that he should follow my
advice, and if he found the horse in the 'state I reported,
that he should not run. I was to send the horse
to Epsom if I thought the journey would not injure
him. When 1 sent him I did not see any chance
of his being able to run. I have never seen him since. I
considered rest would be the only remedy. 1 think it very
probable the injury was occasioned by a sprain or stretching of
the hock, and I thought that was the seat of the disease, from
the heat 1 felt at that part. I think it is possible the horse
might have been walked round the paddock at Epsom, and that
experienced persons, trainers and others, might not have ob-
ierved it, unless it was pointed out. I. think that walking or
trotting the horse would be injurious, and I cannot tell with
what object he was walked about for an hour and a half. I
had given directions when I was at Littleton that the hone
should be kept perfectly quiet.
Re-examined—lt would be necessary to see the horse in
action in order to judge whether he would be tit to run on the
Wednesday.

By the COURT—I told Mr. Greville on the Monday that the
horse could not run without danger.
Mr. Isaac Day—l am a trainer of horses, but not publicly,
and I have; had experience with horses. I was at Epsom
on the 24th of May, and, by desire of the plaintiff, 1 went to see
Canadian, and found that he was lame, and certainly not in a
fit state to run in the Derby on the following morning. I bled
the horse on the Wednesday.
Cross-examined—l heard that Canadian was not to run be-
tween two and three o'clock on the Tuesday, and I think Lord
George Bentinck was the first who told me of it. I was at
the Spread Eagle on the same night, and I saw Mr. Craven
there, and heard some observations made by that gentleman,
but not in reference to Canadian being withdrawn from the
race. I was in the large room about half an hour, but
nothing was said there about Canadian. I think Mr. Cravcn
made some observations about withdrawing horses, and it was
with reference to that that Mr. Craven mentioned the name of
the plaintiff. I heard Mr. Craven say that withdrawing the
horse was nothing short of an infernal robbery, and he
said the members of the Jockey Club were all infernal robbers.
He said that he always ran his horses to win, and did not bet
against his own horses. Mr. Greville's name was mentioned,
but I do not know that it was in reference to these observa-
tions. Mr. Craven appeared to me interested. I won't swear
that he did not say the withdrawing of Canadian was an in-
fernal robbery. He did not say that he had heard Mr. Gre.
ville tell some one that he had betted 10,0001. to 3001. against
Canadian. I did not hear aoy such remarks, but I will not
swear that they were not made. Mr. Craven became very
violent, and I left the bar-room where he was.
Mr. Fulwer Craven examined by Mr. THESIGER—I was
at the Spread Eagle at Epsom on the night before the Derby,
and I will swear that I did not say that I had heard Mr. Grc-
ville declare that he had betted 10,0001. to 3001. against Ca-
nadian, and that he considered it a good bet at the time.
Crossexamined—l betted on Attila. I did not bet against
Canadian particularly.
Sir W. FOLLETT—Excuse me for asking the question; but
were you sober ?
Witness—lt was after dinner, but I have a recollection of
what occurred. 1 did make some strong observations relative
to horses that were sound being withdrawn on the night before
a race, and the observations would have applied to Canadian if
he had been sound, but I don't know that the name was men-
tioned. I said also that the racing fraternity, the Jockey Club,
trainers, betting men, myself included, were all infernal rogues.
(Laughter.) I will not swear that Canadian'sname was not men-
tioned. 1 have no recollection of saying that Charles Greville was
a rogue. Ido not think any one said to me, " You are quite
right, Sir, it is an infernal robbery." I heard Charles Gieville,
on the 1,000/.day at Newmarket, say that he had betted 10,0001.
to 3001. against Canadian, and that he thought it was a good
bet at the time. I will not swear positively that that one ob-
servation was not made in the room, but I did not hear it. An-
other horse that was expected to run besides Canadian was
withdrawn on the Tuesday. He was not quite an outsider, but
the odds might have been thirty to one' against him. I don't
know what were the odds against Canadian. He was a favourite
with a good many people on account of his running at New-
market. I never made use of the expression " Unlike Charles
Greville, I run my horses to win."
By the COURT—There are so many stories about betting
made on these occasions, that I don't attend to one-half of what
is said.

Dilly re-called—The horse was lame for several weeks after
the races, but no veterinary surgeon attended upon him. He
did not run at Goodwood.

Mr. Robert Stephenson—l am trainer to his Grace the
Duke of Grafton. I have known Canadian since he was a
yearling. In' the year 1841 he met with an accident, and
was lame for two months, and the fact was publicly known.
He was afterwards sold to Mr. Greville, and at that time he
was perfectly sound. About two o'clock on the Tuesday, I
learned that Canadian was not to run. Mr. Greville told
me of the circumstance. I know that it was part of the
bargain when the horse was purchased from the Duke of
Grafton that he was to have 1,0001. more if he won the Derby.
'went to see the horse at. Mr. Greville's request, and found
him lame, and not in a fit state to run. I have been trainer a
great many years, and I have known instances of lameness
coming suddenly, and disappearing as suddenly. I knew the
horse Robert de Gorham, who ran at Epsom. He was at one
time in the next stable to. Canadian. Their speed had never
been tried against each other.
Cross-examined—Canadian had been tried against a horse
called Chatham, and beat him. Chatham had ran against Ro-
bert de Gorham, and beat him easily. I don't think it follows
that Canadian would have beat Robert de Gorham. Chatham
was ill when he ran against Canadian.—(lt will be remembered
that Robert de Gorham ran second to Attila, the winner of the
Derby). I examined Canadian, and felt a slight heat about
the near hock. lam not aware of any harm being done to the
horse by walking him about when he was lame.
Re-examined—Chatham ran on the last Derby, and he was,
of course, beaten by Robert de Gorham.
Mr. George Weatherby—l am Secretary to the Jockey
Club. The horse Canadian was entered to run in the last
Epsom Derby, the Ascot Derby, the Drawing-room Stakes at
Goodwood, and the Duke Michael Stakes at Newmarket.
The horse was entered in the name of the Duke of Grafton.
The amount of the Derby Stakes would be 5,000/., with some
trifling deductions; the Ascot Derby would be about 4001.;
the Drawing-room Stakes about 1,2001., and the Duke Michael
Stakes would amount to about 1,0001. I remember some ne-
gotiation in reference to a bet between Colonel Peel and Lord
Charles Fitzroy, and it was disputed whether the former had
laid 10,000/. to 300/. or to 1001. against Canadian and
another horse belonging to the Duke of Grafton, and ulti-
mately the Jockey Club recommended that the bet should be
withdrawn. Mr. Greville has paid all his forfeits upon the
races I have mentioned.

Cross-examined.—lt was, I b lieve, a joint bet between Col.
Peel and Mr. Greville against Canadian and Oneida Chief.
Before the 1,0001. day at Newmarket, the Jockey Club re-
commended the withdrawal of this bet. The decisions of the
Jockey Club are considered to be binding. The principle
upon which the Club acts is upon a consideration of what is
fair and honourable in the matter in dispute. If the Duke of
Grafton bad continued the owner of these horses, he might
have withdrawn them from the races if he pleased, without
assigning any reason. The Jockey Club knew nothing of any
bet, and if the owner of a horse chose to order him to
strike out the name he must do so. If a person the owner of
a race-horse betted against him, lie might withdraw him if he
pleased; at least, I know of no rule to the contrary. If the
owner of a horse makes a bet that his horse will not win, and
he then withdraws him, by the rules of the Jockey Club the
bet must be paid to the owner of the horse. A person who
Makes a bet, it he loses, mustpay it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERA L —That is to say, if a person who
has a race-horse, one even who is likely to win; and he bets
against him and withdraws him, and prevents him thereby from
winning, the beta must be paid ? Witness'---I know of nothing
to the contrary.
Lord John Fitzroy—l am brother to the Duke of Grafton,
and I manage his racing establishment. Canadian was the
property of the Duke, and I remember his being lame in 1841.
I negotiated the sale of the horse with Mr. Greville, and it
was arranged that 2,000 i. was to be paid down, another LOCO/.
if he won the Derby, and he was to be taken with all his en .
gagment?.

Cross-examined—A person who has a horse engaged to run
in any race may withdraw him at his own option, and without
assigning any reason for it. There is no rule of the turf to
prevent the owner of a horse from betting against him, and he
would receive all such bets if he withdren his horse, and if there
were a dispute the Jockey Club would decide to that effect.
Lord ABINGER—They appear to have a peculiar code of
morals if they say that a man who bets 10,000/. against his horse,
wire the money by withdrawing the horse for the purpose of
getting the money, and without any other reason being given.
Lord John Fitzroy--I do not defend such a course of con-
duct, but I only :ay that such a proceeding might be effected.
lie-examined--I should consider it a most dishonourable
act for a horse to be withdrawn by its owner, when he had
made bets against it ; and I don't think any gentleman would
be guilty of such conduct. No man would be tolerated in
society who was proved to have done such a thing.
Lord ABINGEIt—But would he be tolerated by the Jockey
Club ?

Lord John Fitzroy— I think if such an act was proved against
any member that he would be expelled.
Colonel Peel was then examined, and he proved that Mr.
Greville and he had a joint betting-book, and he stated that
there was some misunderstanding between him and Lord C. Fitz-
roy relative to a bet. of 10,0001. to 3001. against Canadian, and the
matter was referied to the Jockey Club. who recommended that
that the bet should be cancelled, and this was accordinglydone.
Ile then went on to state that if Canadian had won the Derby,
that, as their book stood, they should have won 8,000/., and
there were only two other horses on the list by whom they
could have won so much as by Canadian. The arrangement
of betting was to lay odds against all the horses, so as to ensure
a balance in their favour. -

Cross-examined—They betted about 6,0001. to 3451. against
Canadian, and of course they won that amount by his being
withdrawn, and it he had won they would have had to pay the
6,000/., but on the othet hand, they would have had to receive
from all the other horses, and the amount would have
been nearly 14,000/., so that if Canadian had • been a
runner they should have gained 8,000/. Witness did not know
that the horse was withdrawn till the-Tuesday. and he had
made some bets against him- on the Monday. _By the race
being won by Attila they won about 4,6001. If Ctiatbarn bad
won they would have gained 9,0001., and if Sea Horse had
gained the race their winnings would have been 16,0001. The
witne;:s said ha had heard complaints made of horses being

withdrawn, and he said he was also aware that it was customary
for persons to be sent about the country by the owner of a
horse to make bets for him.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then addressed the Jury at con-
siderable length for the defendant. lie contended that
from the plaintiff's own witnesses, it was clear that
there were practices on the turf which all honourable
members of it must desire to see put an end
to, and he , submitted that the defendant had not
gone further thin he ought to do in expressing what
he believed to be a gross fraud upon those parties
who had honestly risked their money upon the horse
belonging to the plaintiff. The case was a most mysterious one.
It was admitted that the lameness was one of a most extraor-
dinary character, such as none of the witnesses had ever seen in
a horse before ; and vet although the plaintiff was well aware of
the fact, and had been satisfied by the veterinary
surgeon, that it was impossible for the horse
to run, ho sent . him to Epsom, he was exercised
in the paddock with the other horses that were
to run, and the public were naturally induced to believe that
he would start, and betted their money on him, when the
plaintiff was well satisfied that the horse could not run. He
argued that it was the duty of the plaintiff, the moment
that he became aware of the fact of the lameness, to
have at once let the public know of it, and not
to have sent the horse to Epsom, which must necessarily
have deceived every body, and induced the world to be-
lieve that he was in a fit state to start for the race. The
Learned Solicitor-General argued at considerable length upon
these points, and he also submitted to the Court that inasmuch
as betting upon a horse race wasan illegal act, the plaintiff could
not snake any proceeding arising out of it the ground of an ac•
tion for libel.

Lerd MUNGER, having expressed his opinion that the tech-
nical point raised by the Counsel for the defendant was no an-
swer to the present action, proceeded to address the Jury upon
the facts, and in the course of his observations he said, that the
question for the Jury was, whether the article published in the
defendants' newspaper was 0_• was not a libellous attack
upon Co; plaintiff. He then referred to the pleadings,
and said that the defendant had undertaken to justify
the publication in question, on the ground that it
was true ; and, in his opinion he had entirely failed
to make out that plea. The Solicitor-General had made a very
ingenious address to them, but he must take care that they were
not led away by it from the real question at issue, which was
whether or not the defendant had published a false and calum-
nious libel upon the character and honour of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff had been accused of dishonestly withdrawing his horse
trom a race, in order that he might win the money he had laid
against him, and also that he had actually lamed the horse, in
order to give a pretext for withdrawing him. These allega-
tions were proved to be false, and then the defendant's
counsel turned round and said, " Oh, it may be all very true
that, the horse really was lame, but the plaintiff ought to have
made the public acquainted with the fact sooner." This was
very ingenious, but it was no answer to the present action,
and he felt bound to express his opinion that the defendant had
failed in all his pleas, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict, with such damages as the Jury should think under the
circumstances he was entitled to.

The Jury, having consulted for a few minutes, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 2501.

COOK AND OTHERS V. lIITCIICOCK.

This action was tried by a special jury. The plaintiffs
are Messrs. Co.)k and Gladstone, Manchester warehouse-
men and silk-mercers, and the defendant is George
Hitchcock, brother of William Hitchcock, the bankrupt,
whose case excited so much sensation a short time since.
The ac Lion was to recover the amount of a bill of ex-
change for 7,000/, accepted by the defendant and his
brother.

The defendant pleaded, first, that he did not accept the
bill in question; secondly, that it was accepted only upon
the condition that it was to be renewed at the expiration
of every twelvemonth for some years, and also that it was
only given as a security for the re-payinent of the sum
mentioned in seven years; but that, in violation of the
agreement, the plaintiffs nover advanced the money, and
it was likewise pleaded that they had charged a usurious
rate of interest, viz., 71. 10s. per cent. far the use of the
money, and that the defendant, therefore, was not liable.
Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Sergeant Chappell, and Mr. M.
Chambers were for the plaintiffs; and Mr. Platt and Mr.
Peacock for the defendant.

The bill having been put in, and the acceptance proved,
Mr. PLATT addressed the Jury, and alluded at some
length to the pleadings.
Some deeds and documents having been put in, the
Learned Counsel called

Mr. W. Hitchcock, who deposed that he formerly
,car-
ried on the business of a linendraper and silkmercer in
Regent-street, and that he had had extensive business
transactions with the plaintiffs, and had been in the habit
of borrowing money of them on various occasions. In
the month of April, 1840, he was desirous of obtaining
from them a further sum of 7,000/., and the plaintiffs
agreed to let him have it if he could get the security of his
brother, the defendant. After some negociation witness
and his brother went to the plaintiffs' house, and had
an interview with. them. At this time the plaintiffs
held the leases of Nos. 114 and 118 in Regent-street,
as security for the money he owed them. An arrange-
ment was made that the money should be advanced
for seven years, and his brother was to join him in giv-
ing security ; and he proposed that the lease of No. -118
should be placed in his possession as a guarantee ; this
was arranged, with interest at 71 per cent. It was then
arranged that the interest should be paid every year, and
a bill for 5251. 12s. 6d., being the amount of the first
year's interest and the stamp, was drawn by the plain-
tiffs, payable in twelve months, and witness accepted it,
and it was paid in due course. The bill for 7,000/.. was
drawn and accepted 'by witness and his brother, and at
the expiration of the first year it was replaced by an-
other bill for the same amount, payable in another year.
This was the bill upon which the present action was
brought.
Cross-examined—Witness waS, a 'bankrupt, and had
not got his certificate. His examination was adjourned
sine die, but he intended to go up again. -
Mr. TIIESIGEI4—DO you remember hearing the Corn-,
missioner say that you left the Court unworthy of credit?
Mr. PLATT obj(cted to such a question being put; and
it was not pressed.
The examination taken before the Commissioner 'of
Bankrupts was then put in, to contradict the statements
made by the witness Hitchcock. The examination of the
present defendant was also put in. MK THERGER addressed the Jury at some length,
contending that the defendant's case had entirely failed ;
that the evidence of the bankrupt was unworthy of credit,
and that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
Some argument then took place upon the pleadings,
and after considerable discussion,
Lord ABINGEII expressed his opinion that the only
pleas upon which a question would arise were those al-
leging usury. And he left it to the jury to say-Ist,
Whether the loan was for seven years at 7i per cent. ;
and, if so, he was of opinion it was usurious, and the pro-
missory-note void. 2d. Whether the money was lent at
71 per cent., and that it was part of the original agree-
ment that the security for the loan should be the note of
the brother and the security of the lease.
The jury found, first, that it was a loan for seven
years at 71 per cent. ; secondly, that the principal se-
curity was the note of hand, and that the lease was the
collateral security. After considerable discussion whether
the verdict should not be entered for the defendant upon
the third issue, the Learned Judge directed a special
verdict as found by the jury to be' entered on the record
as above stated, eaving it to the Court above to decide
for whom it should b^ ultimately entered.

TOBACCO REGULATIONS BILL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR, In your report of the Parliamentary proceed-
ings, which I read in Tuesday's Sun, I find the Chan-
celloi of the Exchequer, when speaking of the above
Fill, •making use of the following expression "And the
trade will he put on a wholesome footing.'' kow in the
name of common sense, how can the trade ever be any-
thing else than upon an unwholesome footing, since the
article (tobacco) will ever remain, what it is—a poison.
Anything is wholesome in the eyes of the Government
which brings grist to the mill. Poisoning the Chinese
with opium, and administering to them leaden pills to
assist its digestion, are very wholesome actions, and
tobaccO is just as wholesome as opium or lead.
I remain, &c., J. H. M.
Huddersfield, Aug. 4, 1842.

IVELANCHOIX ACCIDENT.-About ten o'clock on
esday evening, a party of six persons, three younc,
ladies and three gentlemen, named Sarah Ann Smith,
Eliza Martin, Priscilla Williams, James Guildersleeve,
William Guilds and another young man whose name we
did not learn, started up the East river in a row boat.
Having proceeded as far as the foOt of Houston
-street,
being about fifty yards from shore, they saw one of the
Williamsbnrgh ferry boats, the Newton, within twenty
yards 'of them. The tide at the time was setting hard up
the river, and they found it impossible to get out of the
way of the boat, as it was comimg directly on them.
They hailed the ferry-boat,- but before it was stopped
it came in collision with the row-boat, upset it, and the
three females were drowned ; the men were saved—one
of wham clung to the
.ferry boat, and the other two to the
small boat. Only one of the bodies have as yet been
found, that of Sarah Ann Smith, upon which the Coroner
yesterday held an inquest, and the Jury returned a ver-
dict—" Came to her death by being run over by the
ferry boat Newton, while in a small boat in the East
rivert.on the evening of the 12th instant, through the
carelessness of the. pilot_ of said ferry beat." Jacob Cor-
son, the pilot, on hearing the verdict, voluntarily sur-
rendered himself, and gave bail to answer any charge
whicilitu might be
A bepNrDefeLreErdcalgvA Killt .---7 Some time ago anainst hi m. —New York Paper.'
THE
English Quaker was honoured with an interview by his
Holiness the Pope. The Quaker, having passed through
France, had been shocked at the manner in which Sunday
was desecrated in that country. He, therefore, took the
opportunity which the interview presented of mentioning
the- subject, to his Holiness, and of suggesting to him the
propriety of his interference to cause Sunday to be
kept holy and free from secular employment. The
Pope assured the Quaker that -he was not ignorant of
the open violation of the Sabbath in France, and was
extremely anxious that it should, as it ought, be kept
holy. The time was when the person occupying; the
chair of St. Peter could directly interfere in the affairs
of foreign States, and when Emperors, Kings, and
Princes attended to the beheSts of the Vatican. But the
times had Changed. He could not now exercise any
temporal authority beyond the; limits of the Papal
States. All that he could do, to repress vice and
crime in foreign States, was by addressing letters of
advice and remonstrance to the heads of the Church
in communion with the Holy Catholic Church in those
States. Ile had remonstrated with those in France
on the open violation of the Sabbath in that king-
dom, and should not omit any opportunity of expressing
his strong disapprobation of the anti-Christian practices
which there prevailed. The Quaker, gratified by the
sentiments which he had ghien the successor of St. Peter
an opportunity of expressing, thereupon took his leave
of his noliness.—LiverpoolABion.
THE SHEARING IN NANTyCKET.-7.1110 Nantucket
Islander says that some nine or ten thousand sheep of
'Oat island were stripped of their fie#Ceilast week ; that
the shearing has been more profitable than arty for seve-
ral years past ; and that a hundred sheep pernhed in a I
storm last Thursday night.

,

HIGH W ATIP AT LONDON BRIDGE THIS DAY.
.corning l6 minutes after 01 Evening ..... 46 minutes after 0.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

" A Sudbury Elector."—ln our paper of July 9, Com-
mons' Debate, the date for the suspension of the Sud-
bury Writ should be " August 12,' instead of " Au-
gust 3," as there by error reported.

.
, §-urte,

;54:cronbiZtatton

SUN OFFICE Three o'Clock.

A careful perusal of all the intelligence brought by the
overland mail relative to the war in Affghanistan is not
calculated to impress an attentive and generally well-
informed reader with a conviction of our ultimate
triumphs in that country. Large as is the force already
there, it appears that we can effect little or nothing
from want of camels, gun-carriages, waggons, and a ne-
cessary supply of provisions and water. General PoL-
LOCK'S force is suffering severely from climate, want of
baggage, and deficiency of food. For a whole month
10,000 men had been at Jellalabad doing nothing. The
expenditure of beasts of burden in the Affghan war has
been enormous. General ZoLLoca had but 3,500 camels
at Jellalabad, and had written to the Government of
India that without 7,000 more, he could not advance
upon the city of Caubul. Since the commencement of
the war, 68,000 camels had been sent to Caubul, so that
the stock in India was almost exhausted. The heavy
guns, too, had all been left behind, as the Passes could
only be forced by the lightest pieces of artillery. The
Calcutta Star—a highly respectable journal—states posi-
tively that Lord ELLENBOROUGH has already resolved
to seize the first decisive victory over the Affghans to
evacuate the country altogether. The Editor asserts
that he himself saw an order from the Adjutant-
General's Office, dated " May 14, 1842," beginning
" Instructions having been issued for the with-
drawal within the British provinces, of the troops
serving west of the Indus, it has become necessary to
make arrangements for the comforts of the different corps
during their march across the Punjaub." The Bombay
Times applauds this policy, ps wise, just, and necessary.
The war there has already cost us upwards of seven mil-
lions sterling, and cannot be maintained at a less sum
than three millions annually, of which two millions in
coined silver must be drawn annually from the Indian
Treasury, never to return to it. " Our armies," says
that !Journal, " are dispirited by mishap, and the offi-
cers ruined by their own expenses, and beyond measure
sick of the war. We have no baggage cattle to carry
our artillery or commissariat, nor is it possible, at any
price, to procure them. The winter sets in beyond the
mountains early in November, and the snows are not
entirely cleared away before April arrives ; so
that as we have no fortified post, camp, or
cantonment—and shrunk before from the cost of their
construction at Caubul—any expedition which could
have been undertaken would have been for a few months
only ; the enemy would have tluded us among the
mountains, and our army would have to fall back pelf.
moll in October; leaving us to renew the war again next
year at an expense of twenty millions sterling. We
therefore consider the order for the abandonment of
the country, said to have been issued by the Governor-
General, as the most wise and manly one that could
have been resolved upon." When to, these considerations
are added the alleged treachery of Sir W. MeNAGHTEN,
which led to his murder, and the fearful massacre that
followed, it would seem that we cannot too soon wash
our hands of that country. The Journal of General
ELPHINSTONE, now in the hands of the British Govern-
ment, " shows," says the Bombay Times, " that Sir W.
M•NAGHTEN lost his life in consequence of having laid
an ambush to get into his hands the Caubul chiefs as-
sembled to meet him in conference ! Two regiments
were in readiness to have rushed out upon them, secured
them, and carried them to the camp. The intended
treachery was discovered in time; by the Affghans, who
accordingly prepared a counterplot to carry the Envoy
and his attendants into Caubul. Sir W. M'NAGIITEN
would not suffer himself to be placed on horseback—a
violent altercation ensued—blows were exchanged, when
the Sirdar seized a pistol, and shot him on the spot."
Another account says

" For several days before the last fatal conference, the
Envoy exhibited a discomposure and irritability of
temper altogether foreign to • his nature. He became
silent at the same time, and uncommunicative ; and
although something of unusual moment seemed to be
harassing him, he avoided all intercourse or consultation
with his usual friends and advisers. On directing a couple
of regiments with guns to be got ready for emergent ser-
vice, Gen. Elphinstone cautioned him as to the steps which
appeared to be in contemplation—the peculiar nature of
which was kept strictly concealed. The Envoy said snap-
pishly that he need not concern himself about the matter,
but have the troops ready when required—the plot
thickened well, and would evolve itself apace. 'The
plot, your Excellency !' said the Commander-in-Chief,
Plot is an ominous word in the mouth of an English-
man !' It proved too true. It was an ill-omened word
for Caubul 1 These things, which now begin to trans-
pire in fragments, will by and bye lie brought to light
entire. Abwar commenced in injUstice, appears to have
been conducted throughout in the midst of delusions,
and terminated in one of the saddest attempts at fraud
and faithlessness for which a Briton ever yet required to
blush."

As everything connected with this mysterious affair
is of the utmost importance, we quote yet a third frag-
ment:—

" Sir W. M`Naghten appears, for some time before his
deMise, to have acted like a fated man ; he revealed his
resolutions to no one, and sought the sympathies of none.
We have already noticed his order for a couple of Re-
giments, with guns, to pounce upon the Chiefs as-
sembled for conference. On his way to join them on
the fatal 23d of December. Captain Mackenzie—who,
like the rest, feared the consequences of an . ambush
or counterplot— warned him that he was was walking
into a pitfall, and that a trap was laid for him ; he would
listen to nothing—but like one destined to destruction,
rushed upon his fate. The expression used by the party
who placed the head of the Envoy before Ameen Oola
—that Sir William M`Nagliten had wished to have the
insurgent chief's head, but had lost his own in going in
quest of it—as reported by the early narrators, now be-
comes intelligible to us, referring, as it dtiubtless does, to
the foul play intended
by the Envoy."
The Bombay Times concludes an interesting article on
the affairs of Affghanistan, as follows :
" We refer our readers to the fragments of the memoir
of General Elphinstone. The last named paper was
sent home by the steamerof the 23d of May. Parliament,
we trust, will insist on its publication. It shows that to.the
former Governor-General 'we owe it that cantonments
were not constructed at Caubul fitting for our army, and
that to his ilbjudged parsimony we, are indebted for the
outbreak of the Ghilzies of the passes, who revenged
themselves, first on Sir Robert Sale, and afterwards on
the retiring army of General Elphinstone, in consequence
of the tribute which had been undertaken to be
paid them being withdrawn. The letters of Sir Alexan-
der Burnes to the Government of India, betwixt 1837
and 1839, have been moved for in Parliament. This is
not half enough ; we must have his communications to
the ,Envoy, from December 1839, to July 1841. We
must also have the whole of the papers of Mr. Ross
Bell, connected with the, affairs of Scinde ; and those
of Captain Bean on Shawl affairs—and we shall
then be able to judge whether it arose from a
series of untoward and unlooked for accidents, or a
system of unprincipled recklessness and mad mis-
management, that the late fearful crisis in our affairs
was brought about. In addition to this, we demand the
personal examination of Mr. Charles Masson, an indi-
vidual admitted in 1838, by the Supreme Government,
to have more knowledge of these ill-omened countries,
than all the rest of their employes put together. There
are in his possession, certain papers, which will, in all
likelihood, make their appearance on his examination;
which, conjoined with the other documents already re-
f,rred to, will make the people of England stare !"
We give elsewhere some interesting details of the war
with China, to which we especially invite the attention of
our readers.

There 18 no news of any political interest in the
French Journals of Wednesday. The Chamber of
Deputies is
.engaged with the verification of election
returns, always a disagreeable part of the business of
the session.

Madrid Journals of the 27th ult. have reached us.
i
They bring no news of any interest. On the Bourse on
that day two ba.rgains were transacted in the Threes for
a million of reals, at 21i, for sixty days ; and 32 bar-
gains in the Fives for 20,200,000 reals at 30 8-16 i
for cash, 301, -41, 311, at various dates, with the eleven
coupons.

OLD GLORY AGAIN.-Sir Francis Burdett does not
grow wiser as he grows older. Few but must remember
his zealous patronage of St. John Long, that remarkable
medical genius, whose peculiar lot it was to rub two
female patients to death within the short space of twenty-
four hours, and to enhance the eon-iron and felicity of a
third, by boring a hole in her back, about the size of a
parish poor-box ; few, we say, but must remember
Sir Francis's zealous patronage of this individual, and his
startling statement that he had seen a flash of light
rubbed out of one of his patient's heads ! Last night
the credulous Baronet figured in the House of Commons
as the patron of an invention equally extraordinary with
that of-St. John Long.; and called on the House to grant
a Committee to investigate the merits of a projectile,
which' could destroy a line-of-battle ship at the
distance of six miles, and with a battery erected
at the Isle of Wight, lay Portsmouth in ashes !
Captain Warner, who is the inventor of this tremendous
projectile, may really be able to accomplish with it the
wonderful feats just alluded to. We pass no opinion on
the practicability or otherwise of his scbeme ; but cannot
help observing that Sir Francis Burdett's patronage of
it, looks exceedingly suspicious, and gives it an appear-

mice. of quackery, that possibly may not belong to it.
If Captain Warner—to use Sir Robert Peel's expres-
sion—" be blown out of the water," it will not be so
much by the Premier's opposition to his claims, as by
Old Glory's support of them.