Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

CHETWYND V. DURHAM

[Prom Our Special Correspondent.]

London, June 28.

Everyone is talking of Sir Charles Russell’s magnificent speech in the Chetwynd-Durham arbitration case, and of poor Sir Henry James’s collapse. Never was a more convincingly damning impeachment of a man uttered than Sir Charles Russell’s of Sir G. Clictwynd. The great advocate’s knowledge of racing slang, racing swindles, and turf ethics generally proved only equalled by the masterly manner in which he marshalled his facts and pointed out the only reasonable inferences to be deduced from them. They did not, he said, accuse Sir George Chetwynd of anything so gross and vulgar as telling Wood to pull horses. A nod was as good as a wink in certain cases. Trainers and jockeys gathered from various trilling causes whether a horse was to be “out for an airing” or “ on the job.” Now, Lord Durham contended that on various specified occasions in 1886 Sir George’s horses were deliberately pulled for the sake of deceiving the bandicapper and getting weight off. He should show that on these occasions the horses were ridden by the jockeys whom it was believed Wood always employed when he wanted horses pulled—viz., Luke and White ; that they went very badly in the betting beforehand, and that Sir George did not back them. Furthermore he should prove that on other occasions, when (judging by their previous running) these same horses could have no pretentions to win, they were backed for large sums by Sir George and Wood, and generally beat the field easily. In some cases, as where the boy Evans was instructed to pull Fullerton for the Stewards’ and Chesterfield Cups at Goodwood, it was not so much suggested that Sir George was “ in the know” beforehand as that ho was an accomplice after the fact. Ho certainly must have known Fullerton was “dead meat” when ho heard the Ring trying to lay 100 to 1 against his horse, and he saw the animal was wretchedly ridden; yet _ he called for no inquiry, as an upright owner who had nothing to fear would have done. The fact was that both Sherrard and Sir George Chetwynd were impecunious, and completely in the power of Wood, who was, as had been shown in cross-examina-tion, the real master and guiding hand at Chetwynd House. If further proof were wanting of this, it was to be found in the fact that since Wood’s defection (through losing his license) this magnificent and successful training stable had gone completely to pieces—couldn’t somehow win a race. Sir Charles only spoke for two hours, but by the time he had concluded his indictment we were all sorry for poor Sir George Chetwvnd. Sir Henry James then replied going laboriously through every count, and occupying the best part of two clays. He knows, however, nothing about the turf, and made mistakes wholesale, talking, for example, of the Ring hacking horses. The arbitrators listened with amused tolerance, and poor Sir George, who could have defended himself ten times better, looked profoundly disgusted. To have to pay a man

L3.00D odd for “mushing ” your case must be distinctly trying. After Sir Henry James concluded yesterday, Mr “ Abington” Baird was afforded an opportunity of rebutting sundry awkward insinuations levelled at him iu the course of the trial by Lord Durham. Ha was rot very successful in this ; in fact, the general effect of his cross-examination was to confirm the impression that the alleged partnerships betwixt- himself and Chetwynd were in reality bvl a ixt himself and Wood. Sir Henry Janies then wound up his speech on behalf of Sir George Chetwynd. The arbitrators will not give their decision for two or three days. A general impression prevails that they will let Sir George down pretlv easilv.

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/ESD18890815.2.27

Bibliographic details

CHETWYND V. DURHAM, Issue 7986, 15 August 1889

Word Count
628

CHETWYND V. DURHAM Issue 7986, 15 August 1889

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.

Working