Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE "BED OF STONE" CASE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS.

Sir,—At the recent enquiry by the Stewards of the Canterbury Trotting Club into the protest again3t Bed of Stone, winner of the Final Handicap at their meeting held on the 13th inst., a letter was read from the owner of Linda, claiming the stake on the ground that Bed of Stone was on the forfeit list at the time of nomination. Surely the Stewards should have known this at the time. If so, why was her nomination accepted by the Club ? If the mare was not eligible for the stakes after winning it, why waa she allowed to start jat all during the two days' meeting ? And ;also, when disqualified investors on the totalisator are to have their money returned, should not investors on the other two races in which she started have an equal right to have their money returned, seeing that she could have been disqualified on the _ame ground had she won either of them ?—Yours, Sec, Investor.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP18970823.2.43.1

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9812, 23 August 1897, Page 6

Word Count
172

THE "BED OF STONE" CASE. Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9812, 23 August 1897, Page 6

THE "BED OF STONE" CASE. Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9812, 23 August 1897, Page 6