ENGLISH.

There is very little betting on the St. Leger. Merry Hampton is favourite at about 5 to 2, notwithstanding his defeat in the Grand Prix de Paris. Eiridspord is backed at 6to 1, and Carrasco, Florentine, and Phil nominally stand at 7, 8, and 10 to 1 respectively ; while Salisbury has plenty of support at 100 to 8.

The announcement that the Jockey Club have at length decided to go with the times, and to show us a great race at Newmarket, has beeu hailed with satisfaction. The official announcement has been made that at Newmarket during the Second Spring meeting of 1889 will be run for a £10,000 stake for three-year-old 3. The race is to be called the Newmarket Stakes, and entries close this coming September, the course being across the flat. The conditions are a subscription of 30sovs each. The Jockey Club reserve to themselves the right to reduce the stakes unless there be 300 entries. The fixtures of 1889 are to be arranged so that there will be an interval of three weeks between the decision of this new race and that for the Two Thousand Guineas." To this latter event and to the Epsom Derby the new affair must do infinite harm, as cutting away all interest in them, as the race across the flat for the £10,000 will be looked upon as the great three-year-old event of the season. Friar's Balsam is favourite for next year's Derby at 6 to 1. The following are the figures of the leading English jockeys up to June 24 : — Mounts. Lost. Won. C. Wood ... ... 221 156 65 G.Barrett ... 281 229 52 S. Loates ... ..." 187 144 43 J. Watts , ... ... 16(5 131 35 W. Hobinson ... 151 127 24 F.Webb ... ... 85 62 23 T. Cannon... ... 94 73 21 E. Martin... ... 138 117 21 By an act passed in the early years of her Majesty's reign, all contracts and agreements, whether by word of mouth or .in writing, by way of gaining or wagering, were declared null and void. It was also enacted that no suit should be brought or maintained in any court of law or equity for the recovery of any sum of money, or any valuable thing alleged to have been won upon any wager, or which had been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event oh which any wager had been made. But subscriptions or contributions towards any plate or prize, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner of any lawful game, sport, pastime, or exercise were exempted from the operation of the act. There have been a number of decisions oh the statute. One of the most important is to the effect that where an agent makes a bet for his principal on commission, receiving a small percentage for so doing, loses the bet and pays the money, he can recover the 3um paid from the principal. If, on the other hand, the parties bet together and there is no question of agency, they are debarred by the statute from all rights of action. Owing to this ruling it has become a common practice for bookmakers to make bets for, rather than with, their clients. In a case which was heard on the 13th June before Mr Justice Grantham and a common jury, the particular point in the gaming laws to which we have referred was brought out very clearly. The action was brought by a bookmaker named Crook, to recover from a Mr MacMahon the sum of £830, " paid by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request." During the Houghton meeting last year Crook received written instructions from MacMahon to back certain horses at starting prices, and Crook passed on the bets to other bookmakers, charging a commission. According to the plaintiff's evidence, the parties had had betting transactions together during a period of sixteen years. Up to October 28 MacMahon had lost £700, and on the 30th gave Crook a cheque for £400, which wa3 duly honoured. Later on £1300 was lost, and it was for this sum, less the £400 already paid, that Crook brought his action. MacMahon, who gave evidence, said that he always | betted with the plaintiff at starting prices, and always looked upon him as a bookmaker. Up to the last two years he paid a commission of 10 to 5 per cent, on winners, and 5 to 2J per cent, on non-starters. During the last two years he paid no commission. He knew the bets had been passed on, but thought that had nothing to do with him. It will be noted that the object, of the plaintiff was to show that he had not. betted with, but only for, the defendant, while, the defendant's only chance of success wa's to prove that the bets were made by him immediately with the plaintiff. In support of Crook's contention, George Piesse (of the firm of Piesse and Evans, bookmakers) produced his books, which showed that, on October 28, he had £40 on Panzerschiff with Crook, Panzerschiff beiDg the horse MacMahon wished to back. Another ■ bookmaker gave somewhat similar evidence. Mr Justice Grantham summed up strongly in favour of Crook, and the jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict for the plaintiff.