464 
VETERINARY J URISP11UDENCE. 
binding on persons making such bets. He denied that fact. The Jockey 
Club had no power or authority of the kind, unless all the parties chose to 
refer the matter in dispute to their arbitration. They had then a right to 
decide them, but they had no right to say to Mr. Thornton, “ You must pay 
Mr. Portman, Mr. Beale, and Mr. Clarke, and if you do not do so we 
will pronounce you a defaulter .” He denied they had any such authority. 
They had never called Mr. Thornton before them. He had never heard from 
them. They had never summoned him or given him notice until immediately 
before the last trial, when they sent him notice not to attend their meeting. 
Mr. Thornton was not a member of the Jockey Club, therefore they had no 
right to bind him by their rules, nor to declare him a defaulter when he 
acted according to an established practice, and a distinct understanding 
which existed between him and the gentlemen with whom his money was 
deposited. He denied that the plaintiff had acted contrary to the practice 
of the turf. He had nothing to do with the Jockey Club. He had lost 
money to Gurney, which he had paid to his assignees, with an under- 
standing that it should be paid only when Mr. Gurney settled his own bets; 
that understanding was violated ; and yet, on account of this circumstance, 
the defendants had thought proper to publish him a defaulter. Was this not 
a most serious matter? What would be the consequence when these papers 
were read by persons with whom Mr. Thornton had commercial trans- 
actions, and who knew nothing of the facts of the case? What could be 
thought, but that he (Mr. Thornton) had made certain bets, and had acted dis- 
honestly in refusing to pay them — and that so dishonourable was his conduct 
that the Jockey Club deemed it right to exclude him from places over which 
they had controul ? Under these circumstances Mr. Thornton had brought 
this action to vindicate his character and to shew the real circumstances of the 
transaction. They could not prove that Mr. Thornton had acted dishonour- 
ably in this business. What he had done was this— he protested against 
paying Mr. Gurney against all former practice or usage; but if he (Mr. 
Gurney) acted fairly, then he would pay the money. Mr. Thornton de- 
posited the money on a distinct pledge, which was violated, and he insisted, 
therefore, on getting it back. He now asked for a verdict, not for the sake 
of obtaining money, but that a jury might mark their sense of the nature of 
the publication, and to shew the world that Mr. Thornton, so far from being 
a defaulter and dishonourable man, had acted fairly and honestly throughout 
the whole of these transactions. The learned counsel then proceeded to call 
witnesses. 
John Knight was called to produce the letter sent from Mr Weatherby to 
The Times office, which proof being admitted, and the other letters put in 
and admitted, 
Mr. Weatherby was then examined by the Solicitor-General. — I am 
secretary of the Jockey Club and stakeholder. Mr. Thornton is not a 
member of the club. The present defendants were members of the club. 
He sent to The Times office the letter complained of, and to the offices of other 
papers. That was on the 25th of February, a few days after the trial. The 
trial took place on a Tuesday, and they were published on the Friday follow- 
ing. He sent the letter to The Times, the Morning Herald, Bell’s Life , the 
Morning Chronicle, and, he believed, to the Morning Post, but the Morning 
Post did not insert it. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Wilde. — Was secretary of the club since 
1836. Was well acquainted with the laws of the turf. All bets were de- 
cided by the Jockey Club. Never saw Mr. Thornton to his knowledge at 
any race. Knew that there were complaints among the Jockey Club respect- 
ing Mr. Thornton’s bets with Mr. Gurney. There was on the 12tli of June 
