UNREPORTED CASES. 473 



ference between tliis sum and the purchase-money that the 

 action was brought. 



The defendant called several Veterinary Surgeons, but the 

 Jury found for the plaintiff lOll. 5s. damages. 



On the first day of the Easter Term following, Chilton, Q.C., 

 moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was 

 against evidence, and also that the Horse, though Thich- 

 xvindedi^p), was not unsound; as the celebrated Horse Eclipse 

 was known to be Thick-toincled { p), though the Veterinary Sur- 

 geons called by the plaintiff professed themselves ignorant of 

 such having been the fact. 



Lord Denm.uv, C.J. — " We will see the learned Judge on 

 the subject." 



Crockfokd v. Lord Maidstoite. 



Before the Court of Exchequer {Sittings in Banco), May 1th, 



1847. 



Humfrexj for the plaintiff. 



E. James for the defendant. 



This was an action brought by the widow of the late Mr. A common 

 Crockford to recover the price of some dinners supplied to ^ammg 

 the defendant from Crockford' s Club at his lodgings in Bolton 

 Street, for some suppers in the Club House, and for two years' 

 subscription to it at ten guineas a year. 



The defendant paid into Court the price of the dinners 

 supplied in Bolton Street, and to the residue pleaded that the 

 plaintiff kept a Common Gaming House, and let him have the 

 use of it to the end that he might be enabled to play at certain 

 unlawful games, and that he did accordingly play. 



The case was tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the sit- 

 tings after Michaelmas Term, when his Lordship, in summing 

 up, said to the Jury, " That although money lost at play in a 

 Common Gaming House was not recoverable at law, still the 

 common law of the land did not make it illegal to play at 

 Whist, Chess or any other Game ; and in this case there was 

 not a tittle of evidence to show that the Club kept by the late 

 Mr. Crockford was a Common Gaming House. That, how- 

 ever, was a question for them to decide. H they decided that 

 it was not a Common Gaming House, then they would give a 

 verdict for the plaintiff, j)rovided they were satisfied the money 

 was due." 



The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. 



A rule nisi for a new Trial was subsequently obtained, on 

 the ground of misdirection, in consequence of the Lord Chief 

 Baron having told the Jury, that there was no evidence that 

 the Club was a Common Gaming House. 



House. 



{p) See Thick -wind, ante. 



