466 
VET E 1UN Alt' Y JUliISP RUDENC E. 
Witness. — A fresh notice is given, and then, if the party does not attend, 
the stewards decide. 
The Solicitor-General. — But do you know of such a case? 
Witness. — I do not. 
Sir T. Wilde. — You do not know of any such case? 
Witness. — No. 
Lord Abinger. — You do not know of any case of refusal to attend ? 
Witness. — Parties have not attended from various causes, which may have 
prevented them in the first instance. Mr. Thornton got notice to attend. 
Did not remember any case where the party gave a distinct refusal to attend. 
Did not recollect any case but the present. The summons was issued at the 
instance of Messrs. Portman, Beale, and Clarke. The first meeting, incon- 
sequence of their complaint, was held the 12th of June. At the general 
meeting of the cluh held on the 5th of February subsequently, four persons 
were summoned, amongst whom was Mr. Thornton. He had notice of the 
opinion which was entertained. The first time this statement was taken un- 
der consideration was on the 12th of June. The statement was then put in 
and read. It stated that Messrs. Portman, Beale, and Clarke, were deputed 
to settle Mr. Gurney’s Epsom account, and that a Mr. D owed Mr. 
Gurney <£1500, and a Mr. A =£500. In consequence of Mr. Gurney’s 
irritation of mind they undertook to settle his account, he having won at 
Epsom o£2500, and on demanding payment of it, and being refused, he said 
it was enough to set any man mad, and he would leave the yard. One gen- 
tleman offered his bill for of 500. By the authority of the Jockey Club they 
undertook the settlement of his account. They therefore wrote to Mr. 
Thornton on the Monday previous to settling-day, but not receiving any 
answer, they wrote to him, peremptorily calling on him to declare the cause 
why he refused to settle the account. The date of the meeting of the stewards 
and the selection of members was the 12th of June. The statement just read 
was laid before that meeting. On the 5th of February, 1842, there was a 
meeting of the stewards of the Jockey Club and certain members of that 
club. I never knew the Jockey Club act in reference to the settlement of 
bets except on complaint being made to them. I inserted an advertisement 
in the Racing Calendar , calling on any parties having claims on Gurney to 
send in their demands to me. In consequence of this advertisement I had 
two communications, — one from a Mr. Pattenden, and another from Mr. 
Hawker. The former was withdrawn, and there was nothing done in respect 
of the latter, the subject having been previously considered by the stewards. 
That was the reason assigned by the stewards for not taking Mr. Hawker’s 
account into consideration. Mr. Hawker’s letter had relation to the losses 
which had taken place at Epsom by Mr. Gurney. 
Re-examined by the Solicitor-General. — The reason the club refused 
to give consideration to Mr. Hawker’s letter arose from his being a defaulter. 
It is not the practice of the turf, if a man is himself a defaulter, to consider 
such a man entitled to be paid. During my experience of the turf I never 
heard of assignees being appointed in reference to bets made upon racing. 
This is the first instance of the kind I ever knew‘of. I have officiated as 
the secretary of the Jockey Club since 1836, but I have been connected with 
the club for the last twenty years. The fifth rule of the Jockey Club says, 
that “ all disputes relating to racing at Newmarket, or bets on racing else- 
where (if any of the parties included should request the interference of the 
stewards), shall be determined by three stewards and two referees, who shall 
be members of the club, one to be chosen by each of the parties concerned, 
if either of them shall desire to have referees,” &c. 
