460 
VETERINARY J URISPRUDENCE. 
we recognized on the bench the Dukes of Portland and Richmond, the Mar- 
quis of Titclifield, the Earl of Stradbroke, Lord Maidstone, Colonel Peel, 
(japtain Rous, Mr. Greville, Lord George Bentinck, and Mr. Irby; and in 
the body of the court Messrs. Gully, Greatrex, Weatherby, and’ in fact, 
almost every well-known sporting-character at Tattersall’s. 
The Solicitor-General, Mr. Richards, and Mr. Crompton appeared for 
the plaintiff; Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. B. Andrews, and Mr. Waddington, 
were retained for the defendants. 
Mr. Crompton opened the pleadings by staling that this was an action 
brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, the Right Hon. G. Byng, 
his Grace the Duke of Bedford, and Colonel George Anson, to recover 
damages for a libel which had been published in the newspapers by the de- 
fendants, in their capacity of stewards of the Jockey Club, and in which it 
was stated that the plaintiff was a defaulter in the payment of his bets ac- 
cording to the practice of the turf, and which publications were of a nature 
to do the plaintiff’s character serious injury. The defendants had put upon 
the record a plea of “Not guilty,” and a justification of the truth of the 
facts contained in the alleged libel. 
The Solicitor-General then rose to address the Court and Jury. He 
said, that the plaintiff was a gentleman well known as being one of the most emi- 
nent merchants in the city of London, and he had been compelled to bring 
this action against the defendants, not so much to recover pecuniary damages 
from the defendants for the libel which they had published in the news- 
papers, as to set his character right in the estimation of his fellow-citizens. 
The case arose out of certain transactions connected with the Epsom Races 
of the year 1841. Mr. Thornton, it was stated by the learned counsel, was in 
the habit of attending the races at Newmarket and Epsom, and unfortu- 
nately some transactions took place with respect to the races at Epsom, in the 
year 1841, which had been the subject of much comment in the various 
newspapers of the day, had considerably agitated the sporting world, and 
had been the subject of an action, which was tried in this court in the early 
part of the present year. The plaintiff felt himself compelled to bring this 
action, not for the purpose of obtaining any sum of money by way of 
damages, but because the defendants had thought proper to publish state- 
ments in the public newspapers, and which statements were thereby most 
extensively circulated, to the effect that he was a defaulter in payment of his 
bets, and that, being so, it was their duty to warn him from attending at any 
place under the control of the stewards of the Jockey Club. Mr. Thornton 
felt it his duty publicly to repel so serious an imputation, most especially 
serious when it related to a merchant who had transactions over every part 
of the globe, and which, by being published in newspapers of extensive cir- 
culation, would spread the slander over the whole world. The statement 
which the defendants had circulated amounted to this — that the plaintiff 
had not paid his debts ; that he had, in point of fact, failed in fulfilling an 
honourable engagement ; that he had acted unlike a man of honour and a 
gentleman ; and that, therefore, they had felt it their duty to warn him from 
appearing in any place wherein they had any power, or over which they had 
any controul. This was the libel complained of, and it was possible this 
publication might have arisen from feelings of irritation at the result of the 
trial which had before taken place in connexion with this affair. The cir- 
cumstances which had led to this action were simply these : — At the Epsom 
races of 1841, the plaintiff attended and made bets with several persons ; 
among these was a Mr. Gurney, who, it was believed, kept a public-house 
in the borough of Southwark, and who was also in the habit of attending 
races, and betting largely upon their result. Upon this occasion Gurney 
