The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. is.

(Sittings in Banco.)
It was arranged this morning that Mr. Baron Parke and
Mr. Justice Williams should commence the winter commission
at Liverpool, on the Bth of December; and Mr. Justice Erle
and Mr. Baron Platt at York, on the same day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 18.
(Sittings in Banco.)
re RE WILLIAM CORBETT.
Mr. William Cobbett, son of the late eminent writer of the
same name, was brought up this morning upon writ of habeas
corpus, obtained on his application and representation, that
he was illegally detained in the custody of the Warden of the
Fleet (now in the Queen's Bench),
It appeais that in the month of June, 1840, Mr. Cobbett
was committed by order of the Court of Chancery for con-
tempt in neglecting to answer a bill filed against him in that
Court, at the suit of Oldfield and others, and that whilst in
custody under that order, he was served with an attachment
from the Court of Exchequer for non-payment of costs in an
action in the latter Court.
Mr. Cobbett now grounded his application on the state-
ment that the writ under which be was originally taken in
custody was illegal on the ground of informality, and that
being in illegal custody, he could not be detained upon any
second process. The Learned Gentleman argued the
points of informality, in the original writs at great length,
and with considerable ability, and he cited numerous cases
to show that the first arrest being illegal, the detainer was
illegal also, and he was entitled to his discharge.
The COURT could not go into the question of the legality
or illegality of the writ issued from the Court of Chancery.
Their Lordships would not say that if the writs were
illegal, the Learned Gentleman's argument that he could not
legally be detained on the attachment from the Court of
Exchequer, might not be good. However, the Court could
go into neither of those two questions. They had no juris •
diction over the proceedings of courts at least co-ordinate
with this. The applicant must therefore be remanded, and
seek his remedy in the courts by whose authority he was
committed to custody and detained.
Mr. Cobbett was accordingly conducted back to the Queen's
Prison in custody. 11 is appearance in this Court to-day
arose in this way :—He had applied to the Courts of Exche-
quer and Queen's Bench for the writ of habeas, which was
refused in them, but subsequently (in this term) granted on
the application of Mr. .Cobbett )bbett iu person.
The application occupied the greater part of the day.
EMERY V. RICHARDSON.
This was an action of debt for money had and received,
which the defendant contested, and the case was tried before
the Sheriff of Middlesex, and a verdict returned for the plain-
tiff. Mr. Gill subsequently obtained a rule nisi to show cause
why there should not be a new trial, or. the ground of min-'
direction. The action arose out of a disputed bet, which the
plaintiff deposited with the defendant, but afterwards brought
the present action to recover back the amount, on the
ground that the bet had been illegally made.
Mr. MARTIN, Q C., now appeared to show cause against
the rule nisi, and remarked that the question which had to be
decided upon the trial was whether a bet of 10s. upon a foot-
race of 5/. a .side was a legal or an illegal contract.
Mr. Gim—No ; the question was whether a party deposit-
ing money in the hands of a stakeholder could recover the
money back in a certain event.
Mr. MARTIN concurred in the view of his Learned Friend.
The action was brought to recover 10s., which had been de-
posited with Richardson ; and by a recent deci-
sion of the Court upon this point, the plaintiff had a
right to recover before the event tran,pired which
was to determine the bet, on the ground that it was illegal.
In this case, however, the defendant refused to refund the
money, and one of the parties having walked over the course
for the race the money was paid to him. Now, he con-
tended that the bet was illegal, and therefore the defendant
had rendered himself liable to the action in not refunding
the money when it was demanded of bins. The
first statutes relating to gaming were the 16th of Charles 11.
and the 7th of Anne, chap. 11; the 3d section of the first Act
invalidated all bills of exchange, and bets above 1001.,
where the consideration depended upon the result of any
game, horse, or foot-race ; and the 2d section rendered
illegal all bets which had been won by fraud or collu-
sion. The statute of Anne reduced the amount
from 1001. to 101., rendered all debts upon tic or
credit illegal, and declared certain races and games fraudu-
lent, giving power to parties depositing money with stake-
holders, as bets upon such games or races, to demand and
recover back the same, provided the demand was made
within three months of the deposit, or before the race came
off. He did not, however, contend that the race in
the present instance was illegal ; but he relied
upon the case of Applehard v. Colley, registered in 10 Meeson
and Wailsby, which was a decision upon the statute he had
mentioned last, and which confirmed the Ist section of the 7th
of Anne, chap.ll, declaring all bets and wagers, the considera-
tion for which depended upon gaming, horse or foot-racing,
to be null and void. He might remind their Lordships that
the Legislature in the past session had been guided by this
decision while dealing with and amending the law of gaming.
Mr. GILL relied too upon the case of Applehard
v. Colley, and directed their Lordships' attention
to the fact that, by the statute of Anne, bets
and wagers under 10/. were legal. But his Learned
Friend said the decision in Applehard v. Colley made all
wagers and bets illegal ; but if their Lordships would look to
the closing of the judgment, they would find that it was all
wagers and bets upon credit that were illegal. Here, how-
ever, there was no credit; the stakes had been deposited
on the spot, so had the bet, and he submitted,
therefore, that the rule ought to be made absolute.
The LORD CHIEF BARON agreed with the Learned Coun-
sel for the defendant, that this was not a bet upon credit, for
it was admitted that both the bet and the stakes had been
paid down. Urn looking at the statute, it was c!ear that
the Legislature wished to put an end to betting upon tic or
credit, but not to betting under 10/., where the stake and
the bet were deposited in the hand of some stakeholder on
the spot. In his opinion the rule ought to be made absolute.
Mr. Baron PARKE was clearly of opinion that there ought
to be a new trial ; and he apprehended the case of Apple.
hard v. Colley justified such a step, for the decision in that
case acknowledged the validity of bets and wagers under 101.,
where the money was produced and deposited in the hands of
a stakeholder on the spot.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON and Mr. Baron Ror.Fz concurred in
this opinion, and the Court ordered the rule to be made
absolute.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 18.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Sifignixun.)
ix RE JAMES SMITH WILLIAMS.
This bankrupt, who came up on his own fiat, was de-
scribed as a master mariner, in Clement's-lane, Lombard-
street. He came up for his last examination.
The Solicitor to the fiat said, that in this case no as-
signees had been chosen, nor had any creditors proved their
debts. They commiserated the bankrupt, who had been
shipwreckeeLp the West Indies, and lost his ship and the
whole of his property, save two chronometers. The present
application was, that as the creditors did not wish to inter-
fere, that the bankrupt should be allowed to pass his exami-
nation, and that an early day should be appointed for the
Court to grant the certificate, as the bankrupt was anxious
to obtain another ship.
The Coltaris.loNEß said the case was one for commisera-
tion, and he would assist as much as possible the bankrupt
to pass.
The Solicitor said that as this bankrupt had lost the
whole of his effects, he had to apply on his behalf that one
of the tWct phronometers should be given up to him. for a
captain without a cloonometer was like a ship at sea without
a rudder.

The COMMISSIONER said that be had no power to order the
octal assignee to give up any property ; all he could do was
to order au allowance up to the time of the appointment of
assignees.
The Solicitor said that it was exceedingly likely that no
Assignees would ever be appointed; the question, therefore
was, Winther the Commissioner could not order one article
to be gives up; the bankrupt had, in fact, lost the whole of
isfectst