The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JUNE 22.
.GAMBLING TRANSACTIONS.
HUNTER. V. BELL.

This was an application by Mr. PEPYS, on the behalf of
the plaintiff, for an injunction to restrain the defendant
from indorsing or assigning to a third person a certain
promissory note for 2,0001., passed by him to the defend-
ant as a security for a bet. The affidavit of the plaintiff
in support of the application, stated, among other things,
that he was the heir of a Mr. Hunter, who died, possess-
ing a large fortune, in Madras. Shortly afer his father's
death, a bill was filed in this Court against the executors
for the administration of his effects, and a maintenance of
8,0001. a year was allowed to the plaintiff. The mass of
the property was, at the, same time, paid into Court.
Early in 1825 the plaintiff attended the Doncaster Races,
and, after the day's amusement, dined in company with
the defendant. Mr. Hunter, as he now represented him.
self, being ignorant of the ways of the world, and then
easily imposed on, accepted a bet offered by the defendant,
to this effect--that the defendant should, from the horses
entered to run for the next St. Leger Stakes, name three ; that
if any of these three should happen to win, the plaintiff was
to pay him 2,000/. ; but that the plaintiff was, on the other
hand, to receive 1001. from defendant, if all the three horses
should be unsuccessful. The plaintiff, in fact, bet 2,0001.
to 1001, that the defendant would not select three horses;
one of which should win. One of the three horses then
named by. the defendant was Memnon. The plaintiff in his
affidavit stated, that when he made this bet, it was after
drinking a large quantity of wine ; and.that were be in the
full possession of his faculties, he should not have acted so
rashly. Shortly after this, the plaintiff having .consulted
with his friends, determined on having nothing more to do
with horse-racing—(a laugh,)—or such unprofitable pur-
suits, and was advised to get rid, as soon as possible, of all
his betting engagements: With this view he wrote to Mr.
Bell by post, expressing his desire to withdraw from the bet.
To this letter he received no answer, although it was ad-
dressed to the defendant's 'Usual 'residence. In the Sept.
following the St. Leger Stakes were run for at Doncaster,
when Memnon, one of the Verses named by the defendant,
won; but as the plaintiff had heard nothing on the subject
from-the defendant; he coneltiktd that the bet was consi-
dered to have been at an end. -;:;In the latter part of 1825,
the plaintiff went on a
.contine4al tour; and in
.the May
of the following year, he tnetllhe defendant at the Salon
des Etrangers in Paris, whet demanded of plaintiff the
immediate payment of the . Mr. Hunter reminded
him of the letter, and refused ri!pay the bet. An alterca-
tionx-4. took place between the parties, and it was finally set-
. tied that ,he was to call next ddaiyat the defendant's lodgings.
On. troin• there he found tte t att •nd tw.
•
that it was ;impossible for him to meet the demand, until
he came into the possession of his propeity, which was then
locked up the Court of Chancery. The defendant threat-
ened in the most express terms to expose his character, in
consequence of which the plaintiff was induced to pass him
the promissory note in question for 2,0001. payable two
years' after date, with interest,: Mr. Pepys hoped, that
under these very strong circumstances, his Honour would
grant the injunction, the object of which was to prevent the
note from getting into the hands of a bona fide holder for
value.

The VICE-CtrANcELLon—The law considers a man of
age at 21. I should like to know when a Court of Equity
is to consider him capable of acting for himself? I can't
grant this Injunction ex-parte.
Mr. PEPYS said, that all they required was to prevent the
defendant from endorsing the note before it became due.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—If the note be given for a
gambling debt, it is void, no matter into whose hands it
may go.

Mr, PEPYS reminded his Honour that the plaintiff had
been addressed by the defendant in a public' gambling-house
at Paris, where he was taken off his guard.
The VIcE-CM4NCELLOR-His best way would have been
to keep away from it.
In answer to an observation from Mr. WHEATIEY, his
HONOUR said, that the best security for young men was to
convince them that they had nothing to expect from a Court
of Equity.