The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-08-11
TROTTING IN EN0LAND.
Eighteen Miles an Hour-Tbo Horse BLACK
Jack-Did he Trot Gaiiopf


Common Pleas Division, July 2-(Sit-
ting la Middlesex, before Lord Coleridge and
common Iury)-BltsOn act. Newman. .
This was action to recover tlU, deposited
to abide the event Of n trottine match but In
the course Of the case the claim was limited TO
one-half the sum, which had been deposited by
Mr.. Willis and Mr.. II. Smith appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr.. Anstey and Mr.. Gore for the
Mr. Willis, In opening the case. said that the
plaintiff in August last laid wager Of ESQ with
Mr.. Hawkins, that horse belonging To the lat
ter, named Black Jack. would not trot eighteen
miles within the hour upon the road. and the
money was deposited with the defendant. Ono
OF the stipulations In the agreement was that
the plaintiff should receive, by registered letter,
three DAYS. notice OF when the match was to
given. was that the defendants son left on Sept.
or with the plaintiff a notice that the race
counsel admitted that his client could not, be-
cause the notice was not strictly In accordance
with the arrangement, recover the flOo, but he
commended that be was clearly entitled to have
back his own R60 upon the ground that the
transaction was . wager, and also upon the
ground that the race had really not been won,
because the horse, instead Of trottine, galloped
q large part OF the way.
~ John ba,son the glsntls was called ID and o
Aug. II last ne entered into a written ent
With Mr. Haw kins, bitmaker at walsall Each
of them was to deposit ESQ with the defendant
and the money was to 40 TO the plaintiff or MI.
Hawkins, according TO whether Black Jack
should or should not trot eishteen miles within
the hour, on the road between Lichfed and
Derby. IL was provided that the plan IN should
have three days notice Of tho race by registered
that his decision should be final Further, that
II either party should not comply with the
agreement his money should be forfeited. Tue
witness said that he did not receive notice OF
the race by registered letter; he heaid that the
race took place, but that the horse did not prop
erlv perform the distance. He claimed the
Eco, and week after the race he saw this de-
PENDANT and asked hun for his go. He said that
be would give the money to neither OF them.
Cross-exaiuined-H claimed the fl00 upon the
ground that he lad not received notice by reg
istersd letter He received notice from the d o.
PENDANTS son, but did not 20 to the race. De-
fore the race he heard that Black Jack had
trOtted well, but he never asked Mr.. Hawkins to
let him oH tue net, nor old he offer to stand "
a champagne supper to be let on.
Mr.. Willis said that he was willing TO rest his
case upon the fact that hrs client had, before
the deiendant parted with the money, demand
ed back his ESQ.
Mr.. Anstey said that the plaintiff did not, he
Understood. demand back he money IS OF right.
The witness. In answer to the learned counsel,
said that he did not offer to give his o U for
the ESQ II II was returned. lie simply said,
MIR. Newman, Will you give me my ESQ back
neither Of you" 4 nat WIS all that was said.
Reexantned-Mr. Owen, at the George Hotel.
at asall, said he thought Mr. Hawkins was
| entitled to the money: lie never heard Of but
one horse that trotted eighteen miles In the
| hour.
Mr.. Joseph Newman. the defendant, said that
| what took place when the plaintif sked for the
ESQ was this He asked for the ESQ, and SAID
| 81 viii give you my q u for II, ana an indem
nifty against Mr.. Hawkins II he should bring an
action"
| time, and refused to give IL up.
Lord Coleridge did not think that this version
| OF the matter made any difeTeuce. He should
| hold upon The authority of Narney agt. HEX
man, aud Hampden agt Walsh, that the plain
tin was entitled to have back his go
Judgment for the plaintiff for t5O and costs.