VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
469 
1 lost to Mr. Gurney to assignees. I refused to pay them, until I got a 
guarantee that all claims on Mr. Gurney on account of betting should be 
paid in full by the end of the Houghton Meeting. I got a guarantee to that 
effect, and paid the bets I lost. I stated at a general meeting of the Jockey 
Club, held after the Houghton Meeting, that the guarantee had not been 
complied with. The Houghton Meeting in 1841 took place in October. I 
gave formal notice at that meeting to Colonel Anson and to Mr. Byng, who 
were the only stewards of the Jockey Club present, that the guarantee of Mr. 
Gurney’s assignees had not been fulfilled, inasmuch as Gurney’s debts had 
not been paid in full; that the guarantee had then but one day to run, and 
that the assignees would forfeit the money they had received, if it were not 
fulfilled within twenty-four hours. I first saw the assignees’ account at the 
meeting of the Jockey Club on the 5th of February. At the meeting on the 
5tli February Colonel Anson was in the chair. It was stated at that meet- 
ing, that there was a claim of JHOO made by a Mr. Hawker on the assignees 
with respect to a debt due by Mr. Gurney; but the claim was refused 
by the sanction of the stewards, on the ground that Mr. Hawker had not 
paid his own debts ; that he was himself a defaulter, and that he was not, 
therefore, entitled to receive. I know no instance of persons being warned 
off the course at Newmarket for non-payment of bets. I know no instance 
of persons being warned off on other grounds. There might have been 
several instances, though I am not aware of them. I do not think any per- 
sons have been advertised in the newspapers as defaulters. 
Cross-examined by Sir T. Wilde. — I have myself proposed a rule, that 
all defaulters should be advertised in the newspapers. That resolution was 
opposed by Colonel Anson and other gentlemen, on the ground that it would 
subject the club to an action for libel. A great deal had been said in the 
newspapers about those bets of Mr. Gurney. I never knew so much to be 
stated in newspapers about any other transactions connected with horse- 
racing. I heard of the guarantee, and that i?1250 would be paid by Mr. 
Thornton. I was not myself immediately interested in that bet. 
Sir T. Wilde. — Do you mean to say that you were not interested to the 
extent of one-third of £500 in that bet made by Mr. Thornton ? 
Lord George Bentinck. — If I am obliged to say yes or no to the question, 
I would say that I was certainly not at all interested in the payment of the 
debt ; but I wish to state the circumstances. I employed a gentleman, a Mr. 
Cromley, to make bets for me and another party, and Mr. Cromley made a 
wager with Mr. Thornton, who took the odds about a horse. If the money 
was won the money would come indirectly to me ; but the bet was lost, and ac- 
cordingly I had to pay it, and I did pay it to Mr. Cromley. I was not inte- 
rested in the payment of Mr. Thornton’s bet. 
Cross-examination continued. — I contributed some portion of the bet in- 
directly through Mr. Cromley. I know from Mr. Cromley that the bet has 
been paid to Mr. Thornton. I paid my portion of the loss on the Monday, 
on the day before the settling-day. It was usual for those who lost on such 
occasions, and who also won, to meet together to balance their losses with 
each other, and to transfer their winnings or losses. I did not see Mr. Gur- 
ney on M onday or Tuesday. 
Suppose a party did not appear on the settling-day, but afterwards paid 
his losses, would he receive his winnings in the meantime ? — If the losers are 
satisfied that he has paid his own losses ; but the proof of that rests on the 
person who has been absent on the settling day. Absence is presumptive 
evidence that the individual does not mean to settle. It rarely happens that 
any gentleman absents himself without making some communication through 
some agent. Agents frequently act for the winners and losers. I believe 
VOL. XV. 3 R 
