288 
and a pony, which she used to 
ride. 
Mr. Topping.—He should for- 
bear making any observation, or 
adducing any evidence calculated 
to affect the character of the per- 
son who had taken the name of 
Mrs. Underhill; as he felt that 
by so doing he should not be able 
to alter the verdict, which, upon 
the evidence, must be for the 
plaintiff. The truth was, the de- 
fendant, when very young, had 
become enamoured of this lady, 
but passion having ceased, and 
‘reason having assumed her em- 
pire, he had formed a more suita- 
ble and honourable connection. 
_ Sir Simon Le Blanc observed, 
that when the defendant quitted 
his lodgings, leaving behind him 
the lady who had passed for his 
wife, if he had meant to with- 
draw himself from future liabi- 
lity, he should have given the 
‘plaintiff notice of his intention, 
‘but he had not done so: le had 
departed clandestinely, and no 
tidings were heard of him till the 
report arrived of his marriage. 
There could be no doubt that his 
liability continued. The Jury 
.were of the same opinion, and 
their verdict was for the plaintiff, 
to the full amount of his demand, 
—Damages 47/. 8s. 6d. 
WAGERS. 
Chester Assizes. 
_ Sir T, Massey Stanley Bart. v. 
Hodgson.—This was an action 
against the defendant, a gentle- 
man of the first respectability on 
the turf, for the amount of a debt 
which was refused to be paid, as 
being against the laws of the turf. 
The case had been argued before, 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1815. 
in a court of another description, 
but although a court of honour 
(the Jockey Club), the members 
had no power to issue writ or 
process, to compel the execution 
of their judgment. The case was 
as follows :— 
In 1811, a party of sporting 
gentlemen dined at Colonel Barn- 
ston’s, in Chester, amongst whom 
were the plaintiff and the defen- 
dant, a gentleman of fortune at 
Liverpool. 
amonth old, and it was agreed 
by the parties they should run a 
match at Chester races, 1813, 
8st. each for a 100 guineas, h. f. 
Sir Thomas brought his filly to 
the post, but no horse of the de- 
fendant’s made its appearance. 
Sir Thomas’s jockey weighed, and 
it afterwards came out that the 
defendant’s filly was dead. The 
learned counsel observed, that the 
stipulation of the half-forfeit was 
to guard against accidents, which 
horses as well as men were sub- 
jectto,. The wager had been won 
up to the extent of one half of it; 
and the Jaw of England would 
shew that the defendant was 
bound to pay the 50/, for the re- 
covery of which the action was | 
brought. 
The Attorney-General submit- 
ted to the Court, that the act of 
God had rendered it impossible 
for the defendant to fulfil his part 
of the contract; and that such 
rule of law was equally as appli- 
cable to brutes as to mankind. 
Chief Justice—‘* Here not so 
undoubtedly; a man undertakes 
that he will dv so and so, and 
binds himself to the performance 
of it; he is responsible for the 
non-performance of his agree- 
ment. So with a horse; a man 
may bind himself that his filly 
They each hada filly _ 
