wards had decided in his favour. The horse was, originally, the
property of Mr. Goodman; and, Mr. Cockburn said, it was because suspicion
attached to some transactions of Goodman, and because certain persons had
betted heavily against Running Rein, that opposition was raised against
Mr. Wood receiving the stakes. He made a severe attack on Lord George
Bentinck, who, he asserted, was the real party in the cause. Witnesses
for the plaintiff described the horse at various periods of its career;
it was of a bay colour, with black legs, and a little white on the
forehead; its heels were cracked, and, in 1842, it broke the skin on one
leg, which left a scar. George Hitchcock, a breaker of colts, employed
to break Running Rein in October, 1842, was cross-examined to this
effect:

"I know George Dockeray, the trainer. I never said to him, 'Damn it,
this colt has been broken before; here is the mark of the pad on his
back.' I showed him the mark, but I never said those words, or any
words to that effect. I don't know why I showed him the mark. It
was not big enough for the mark of a pad, and it was not the place
for the saddle to make it. I told Lord George Bentinck the same.
The mark of the pad never wears out. I recollect being asked, in the
presence of Mr. Smith, what I had there? and I recollect answering, a
four-year-old. I have not the slightest doubt of it. Mr. Smith
struck me for it. I did not say, afterwards, that I had forgotten
all about the horsewhipping, and that the marks of the pad had worn
out. I never said, either, that somebody had behaved very well to
me."

At an early period of the examination of witnesses, Mr. Baron Alderson
expressed a wish that he and the jury should see the horse; and Mr.
Cockburn said he had no objection. On the cross-examination of William
Smith, a training groom residing at Epsom, it came out that the horse had
been smuggled out of the way, that it might not be seen by the
defendant's agents. The judge, animadverting on this, and on the evident
perjury of the witness, said it would be better that the horse should be
seen by him and other parties. The Solicitor-General, who appeared for
the defendant, was anxious that the horse should be seen by veterinary
surgeons. To which the other side objected, maintaining that the mark of
mouth, by which, alone, those surgeons could judge of the age of a horse,
was a fallible c