THE FISHHOOK CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 4649, 24 January 1878, Page 4

THE FISHHOOK CASE.

The removal of the ban from O’Erie”, who was last year adjudged by the JS’orlh I Otago Turf Club to have been guilty of j corrupt action in regard to his racehorse I Fishhook has created less stir amongst the i Press than one had a right to expect, when taking a review of ihe eagerness with which the various clubs of the Colony concurred in the decision that O’drien should be disqualified from participating in the privileges at the disposal of the North Otago Jockey ! Club and followed its laudable example, l far from disagreeing with the action of the I club, the Press is almost unanimous in its verdict that the club has acted with discretion. We may conclude that the opinions of the Press in regard to this affair are also the opinions of the majority of those most interested in such matters, and that they are the outcome of a convici tion that the club, whose perspicacity and jealousy for the purity of the turf led to the detection of the offence and the punishment of the offender, is best capable of judging of the extent of that offence and the punishment which should be meted out. There are many reasons why the Press has been so unanimous in its approval of the action of the club. At the outset it was questionable whether O’Brien was the prime offender. It was well known that circumstances attached suspicion to other prominent members of the turf ; but as 0 Brien and hia jockey were the only men that could be reached, the club very properly evinced its determination to protect to the best of its ability the purity of the turf by prohibiting these two men from taking part in the race meetings under Their control during their pleasure. It intended to cause him to suffer a penalty commensurate with the extent of hia offence, and one which should opeiate as a deterrent to others ; and the penalty having been paid the ciut>, feeling that it would be harsh and inconsiderate to proceed further, have removed the ban.—‘Oamaru Mail.’

The people of Oamaru—or at least the leading members of that community—may be consistently credited, we think, with having some little spirit in their composition they are rather effervescent in their naturehut, if they commit a fault theirs is the disposition to admit the error and submit to the unpleasantness of the affair with a grace. When Fishhook was hastily diaquali hed by the stewards of the Oamaru Race OJub last year, we took exception to the course adopted, giving it as our opinion that the right party had not been “got at,” and it now appears that our conclusions on that head have been endorsed by members of the committee. The owner of Fishhook sont in an application lately to have the disqualification removed from his horse, and at a meeting or that committee a resolution was consistently carried to that effejt, after a great deal ot discussion, during which some mo, t curious opinions were expressed. We say consistently carried,” lor the reason that the case was not previously tried on .is merits that it was rushed tiiroimh •on the spur of the mom at—in a most i epre>'ei «il. e manner. We will not go so far as to endorse some persons' opinion that the stewards desired to cloak the actions of one or two affluent friends; but this we do say, that no fw/'m Was brou £ hfc forward to prove that U JJnen was the offender—if any wrout* bad be< n committed ° The more we go into the case the greater is our disgnst at the “trimming” business. It the horse was intentionally pulled the n-Jer must have been “got at ” for the purpose of effecting a swindle, and, as there was no proof that O’Brien benefited by his horse losing the race—but the reverse—great, affluent sinners must have been pulling the swindle-string* to a good tune ; consequently' ■i little pnnishm nt will be awarded to som j ‘ gentlemen ” of the turf by allowing the much-dreaded Fishhook to run again. Wo wiph it was in our power to poipt distinctly to the perpetrator or perpetrators of tin

Fishhook swindle, so that some action may be taken to endeavor to punish, or put to the blush, disgraces to the appellation “gentlemen of the turf.”— ‘ Waitangi Tribune.’