VETERINARY JURISFRUD E N C E 
471 
The question was not pressed. 
Examination resumed. — I did not warn Mr. Thornton off’ the ground. 
By*Mr. Waddington. — I am tenant to the Jockey Club. 1 did not warn 
Mr. '1 horn ton off the ground. 
Richard Tattersall, examined by Mr. Richards. — I received a letter from 
Mr. Weatherby. In consequence of that letter I gave Mr. Thornton notice 
that he could not appear at the betting-yard. I had received from Mr. Wea- 
therby a notice, which was dated the 25th of February. The notice was then 
read. (It states that he was directed by the stewards of the Jockey Club to 
acquaint him, that Mr. Richard Thornton had been adjudged by them a de- 
faulter, and he had, consequently, received notice that he could not be ad- 
mitted to the betting-vard, not to the ground on the Newmarket race-course). 
I then wrote a note to Mr. Thornton, which was as follows : — “The Messrs. 
Tattersall beg to inform Mr. II. Thornton that, according to the41st rule of 
the Jockey Club, he is no longer a subscriber to the rooms.” 
The case for the plaintiff here closed. 
Sir T. Wilde then said, he was by no means clear that the present case 
was understood by the jury. He appeared there for the defendants, who 
were the stewards of the Jockey Club. The jury were aware of the nature 
of that association, which consisted of noblemen and gentlemen of rank and 
fortune, who united for the purpose of procuring the due performance of the 
obligations of honour and good faith in matters relating to or arising from 
horse races. They were aware that betting created associations between two 
distinct ranks in society, and individuals meeting at Tattersall’s yard and 
betting room, met there, and only there, on terms of equality. The nature 
of the transactions which take place there between such persons are entirely 
dependent on the honour of the parties ; and the arrangements there entered 
into are not expected to come under the cognizance of a court of law. The 
character of the individuals who attend are not known, and if known might 
be in some cases rather equivocal. Yet these men of honour, and others 
whose honour is not so bright or firm, are compelled to meet together. 
Unless, therefore, there were some common tribunal, whose authority is ad- 
mitted on all hands, and is considered binding on all parties, such transac- 
tions could not go on. If a man were permitted to decide for himself 
whether he would pay his losses or would not do so, and if, after a refusal to 
pay a just debt, he could still go on, it was impossible that the present system 
of betting could be carried on for a moment — such transactions must cease 
entirely. It was, therefore, necessary for the protection of all parties that 
some tribunal should exist, the character and station of whose component 
members should be a guarantee for the justice and equity of their proceed- 
ings, and for the due and honourable performance of those contracts which 
take place among sporting men. It is for this purpose that the Jockey Club 
exists. It must be obvious that many cases must arise with regard to bets, 
whether lost or won, of such a nature as could not come under the notice, or 
require the interference, of a court of justice. Considering the nature of 
these transactions generally which take place, and how loosely they are con- 
ducted — considering how seldom contracts there made are, or can be, re- 
duced to writing — it will be seen how absolutely necessary it is to have some 
tribunal consisting of men moving in that class of society which gives an 
assurance of honour and integrity in its members. With that view r the 
Jockey Club was created. Unless there were that tribunal, or some other, to 
decide such matters, they would have men who, after receiving their win- 
nings, would refuse to pay their losses ; plenty would be found to excuse 
themselves from paying, and who would easily find somebody to agree with 
them and support them. The question is, whether the Jockey Club is a 
