VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 467 
The Solicitor-General. — Now, be good enough to read the sixth reso- 
lution of the club. 
The witness then read as follows : — 
“ If any dispute, arising elsewhere than at Newmarket, shall be referred 
to the stewards of the Jockey Club, and they shall think fit to take it into 
consideration, the matter must relate to horse-racing, the facts or points of 
difference be reduced into writing, and he sent by, or with the sanction of, 
the stewards where the matter in question occurred, and the parties must 
agree in writing to abide by the decision of the stewards of the Jockey 
Club.” 
The witness here observed, that this rule had no reference to bets ; but if 
parties came and solicited the interference of the club, then they would pro- 
ceed to consider any complaint, in respect to bets, that might be laid before 
them. I never knew of a case where the club came to a resolution in refer- 
ence to the payment of bets in the absence of the party, or without notice 
being sent to the party affected. On the 12th of June, at the meeting held 
on that day relative to Gurney’s affairs, two or three persons were examined 
in support of the statement read there. Mr. Thornton received no notice 
from me of this meeting, and yet the qjub came to resolutions relating to that 
gentleman. These resolutions were signed by Captain Rous, Colonel Anson, 
and the Duke of Bedford. I do not know that Captain Rous had won money 
from Mr. Gurney. The effect of the resolution was, that the debtors of Mr. 
Gurney were bound to pay over their losses to Messrs. Portman, Beale, and 
Clarke. The sixth resolution referred to had no reference to bets. 
Lord Abinger. — Where is the reference as to the power of the Jockey 
Club touching bets at Newmarket in any resolution? 
Witness. — The practice is for the club to take cognizance of bets and 
every thing that occurs at Newmarket ; but the club has nothing to do with 
bets any where else. The resolution is therefore erroneous, when it does not 
point to bets made at Newmarket. The club recommends the adoption of 
its rules for racing at Newmarket to the country race courses, and will not 
take cognizance of any country race, unless it is founded on the Newmarket 
basis. The sixth resolution refers solely to disputes arising out of racing. 
There was a meeting of the Jockey Club on the 5th of February, 1842; but 
I did not give any notice of the meeting to Mr. Thornton. I know of 
nothing officially having been stated at the meeting of the Jockey Club in 
reference to its being dishonourable for Mr. Thornton to have gone to law. 
There was a great deal of discussion in the club, but no resolution was put 
from the chair on that point, nor have I any record of any thing of the kind 
having occurred. After this meeting of the 5th of February I received a list 
containing the names of four persons who were defaulters. They were Mr. 
Watts, Mr. England, Mr. Dixon, and Mr.Thornton. Of these Mr. England 
did not attend. Mr. Dixon set the Jockey Club at defiance, and he was 
declared to be a defaulter. I had no instruction to send an account to the 
newspapers of the fact of his being a defaulter. I had, however, instructions 
from the club to send such a communication to the newspapers in the case 
of Mr. Thornton. 
To a Juryman. — Did not publish Mr. England’s or Mr. Dixon’s names in 
the newspapers as defaulters. I had, however^ instructions to communicate 
the fact to Tattersall. When 1 sent to summon Mr.Thornton to attend the 
Jockey Club, I knew that the trial of ‘‘Thornton v. Portman” was then 
pending. I was summoned as a witness. It was in the statement made by 
the assignees that Watts, Adkins, and Davies were indebted to Gurney. These 
persons were not declared to be defaulters. The account furnished by the 
assignees of Gurney’s affairs was laid before the Jockey Club. The account 
