RACING REVELATIONS.

Manawatu Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 7979, 21 May 1904, Page 3

RACING REVELATIONS.

Unsatisfactory Evidence On I ' .' Both Sides. His Honor's Plain Spaaking. The case of W. Homes r.^Konaia .Cameron was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Sir Robert Stout. ' In opening the case for the dofonce. Mr Cohen said Koines' evidence and conduct was not Buch as to bear the rebutting evidence that would be produced. After referring to the circumstances of Homes running the horse in Cameron's name, and not registering his own, Mr Cohen said that if Mr Goodall knew the true facts of the case it waa his duty to have refused to receive Humes' entry at Bulls' races. If Bangimoo had won them, it would have "been his duty to warn the stewards not to pay out the stakes. Cameron was then called. He said he had had previously two horses — Eonald.;and Hokio - trained by Homes. There had never been any partnership between the two, find ho denied the allegation that Homes had been an unregistered partner. He had Bangimoe " on his place at Fordell for about 16 months before handing him to Homes. He took Bangimoe from Mr Baldwin to try him, and in July bonght him for .£lO0 —to pay whenever-it suited witness. He met Homes in Wanganui and they discussed Eangimoe. Witness B&id be was a good horse, but he would like Homes' opinion of him. A.t that time Homes was training Hokio, and witness, sent Eangimoe on November 7th to train on the usual terms— £2 per week. That was the only nrrangement made; there',was no ■ mention of partnership. Homes was to have Rangimoe for a week or two to find out if «;ho was fit for racing. A week or two after he received a message from Homes as to the quality of Eangimoe, and as the result of that it was allowed to remain with Homes. ' It was left entirely to Homes to nominate the horse and its racing career. Witness waa not consulted ; it was left to witness to race him whore he thought he was best fitted. . His first start was at Bulls, but he ran twice and did not win. The next time he saw Eangimoe was at Foxton on the second day, January 23rd. Brown rodo (a boy employed by Homes) who was on the horse at Bulls. He paid all the jockeys' mounts. Homes said Eangimoe had a real good chance, and waDted witness to put £5 on for him. Witness backed the horse himsolf. Eangimoe never came near winning. It was a five • _ furlong race, and very moderate horses were running. After seeing that race he came, to the conclusion that the horse was not worth keeping. In Iris diary (produced) he wrote, on January 23ra : " I don't like the look of things; I'll go to Bulls and settle up with Homes." He had kept ~ '•» diary since he was married, ten years ago. He went to Bulls on the following ' day, and saw Homes on the Monday. He asked for his accounts, and Homes made out Hokio's account from his book. Then witness asked for Eangimoe's account, which Homes made up, but did not take from his book, then , ~witnesji asked for. Eangimoe. Homes v said he had gone to Pahktua. " What was the use of sending him to Pahiatua when he couldn't win at Foxton ?" asked Cameron. " Oh, he had hard luck at Foxton and got knocked about ab the post," replied Homes. Witness went to the Pahiatua races, which were on January 27 and 28. He paid the nominations ancL acceptances on the, ground, and engaged C Jenkins to ride Rangimoe.' ■. He told Homes, who said : " You can't do that; I've got McAleerto ride." Witness said McAleer would have to stand down; he wanted to find out whether the horse was worth bothering with. Homes said: "I've told you lie's a good horse." *' It looks like it after Foxton," replied witness. Jenkins rode in the mile on the first day. Homes told witness it was too far, as he had not been trained over the distance and had no chance. Jenkins rode, but the horse did not win. He ran a good race, however, much better than at Foxton^; witness thouglit ■was a much better horse than he had believed. On the second day Jenkins rode again. • Witness told Homes to give Jenkins his- instructions. Witness had already given his instructions to Jenkins, but ho wanted Homes to give instructions too. Bangimoe was entered in two races^ but only started in one, the ■even-furlongs. 'When they started Wangaehu was a couple of lengths ■ clear of the field, but Eangimoe want ■•'after her,' passed her and went several lengths ahead. Ho spoke to Homes, who said " We're gone a million." Witness said, "If my horse wins this race I'll never again own a hair in a horse's tail." Homes said nothing. Witness was very excited because he was sure Eangimoe had not had justice at Foxton. Eangimoe won easily, and after the race Cameron sold him to C. McDonell for £120. Witness entered the transaction in his dairy and wrote : " I hope I shall never see Homes again." Homes refused to give possession of the horse at Pahiatua, and witness went to Greatford to get Eangimoe. Homes objected and said " Don't you know I'm your partner ?" Witness repudiated the suggestion, which was the first reference to partnership made by Homes. Witness did not admit that Homes had any right to the horse, and told him he had sold Rangimoe and received payment. On February 4 witness took the horse and offered Homes £25 in settlement of their accounts. Homes said, 11 You had better lee my. solicitor," and refused the money. On February 2 ~,witness had received a letter from Hankins and Loughnan in reference to the alleged partnership, and .stating that Mr Homes was prepared to render a complete statement for the purpose of ■winding up the partnership, and pointing out the inadvisability of the partnership being made public, as Cameron and Homes had infringed theEules of Eacing by racing without both being registered. Witness was served with an injunction on February 13, and had not been able . to. race the horse since. Witness received a letter from McDonell's lawyer (Mr Gifford Moore) and handed back the purchase ■money, as he- had been unable to give delivery as required. Witness had not paid Mr Baldwin ; the latter had received a cheque (which had not been cashed) from Homes. Mr Baldwin said he was qujJe^sa.ijJiSfUid with their arrangement —tfr'p&y him ' when he chose. '■ • ■ • In the course of cross-examination Mr Loughnan asked: ■ McDonell is a first cousin of your 3, isn't he ? -Yes. : ■ And you have been intimately connected in racing matters'? ■In all matters. Do yon alway* pay your debts ?—Yes, »b soon.as they become due. . Then Why did you letthe account for Hokio'a training run on to £60, and only give Homes £10 ?—He had £35, and he hadn't asked before. McDonell paid ' him £25 for me. Before Eangimoe was tried, didn't you say that he was worth £300 as a maiden?— Yes. - After he had won at Pahiatua didn't you tell Mr J. R. McDonald Eangimoe was good enough to win a National- -a horae worth £500?— I said he had the furnishings of a National winner. , . , Isn't it ft fact that you tried, to sneak the horse away from the boy when Homes wasn't present ?—No. Did you back the horse at Bulb?— Yes, • . . How much did you have on ?—I had £1 the first and £2 the second day. Are you a big betting man ?—No. • ' Do you confine your investments to ! £2 when you are confident of winning a race?—l never am confident of win- .. ning. . What is the extent of your investments, then, when you are most sanguine ? —Well, the biggest bet I had in my life was at Foxton. I had £20 on Eangimoe, and £5 on for Homes. Witness was cross-examined as to the statement that he paid the jockey Brown's riding fees. Did you noc only pay him the other day, add through your solicitor ?—Yes ; I made enquiries, because I was not j sure that I had to pay him, as he was ' employed by Homes. What, you a racing man, and not know that ah owner pays a jockey's losing mounts ?—Well, I haven't been racing so very long, besides I was told before that I must pay through the employer. Sam Cameron, defendant's brother, •tated that Homes told him after be had had Eangimoe about a month, to tell plaintiff that " he is the beet horse I've had in my stables since the New Zealand Cup runner, Ngaturei." Cumberland McDonell deposed to ' buying the horse at Fahiatua. Homes made no protest. He did not get delivery of Eangimoe as expected, and so instructed Mr Gifford Moore to write cancelling th« agreement, as he had wanted the horse to race at once. Cross-examined,- witness said there bad been no Iriction between himself aod Cameroa in regard to the horse,

Thou wiiy did you send a lawyer's loiter '•' — i-kx-mso I didn't get delivery. A.« v. nis'tucr of fact dou'fc youlcnow that he is worth a grent deal more thau i £120 ?—I don't -know that lie is. : \ What about this £25 ?— Homos asked mo and I lent, him £25. ■ Charles Jenkins, jockey, was the :noxt witness called.. He ■ rode Bangimoe at Pabiatua. On the first day he did not win; on the second day he did Did Homes have any conversation with you on the first or second day about Bangiruoe ? —Yes, on the second day. Mr Loughnan objected. The tendency of the cross-examination was to allege fraud against plaintiff, and was altogether irrelevant. Mr Cohen argued at some length that the evidence was admissable. His Honour, after looking the point up, ruled against Mr Cohen. "If it is only intended to ask about whan is called crooked running, I don't think is is relevant," he said. The point at issue was not one of fraud, but one of partnership. "If I were to open the door to questions of fraud in racing cases, I don't know when I shouli get through," added his Honour. Mr Cohen wm given permission feo ask the following question? :— If you received instructions from the owner and trainer, and they differed, whose orders would you follow?— The owner's. Whose instructions did you follow in this case ?—The owner's. Was there a variance between the instructions of owner and trainer?— There was. His Honour: " I do not think you can go any further. John Baldwin, Turakina, spoke to the arrangement between him and Cameron as to the sale of Eangimoe. After Pahiatua races, he said, Homes visited him and inspected another colt belonging to witness. Homes said he was in partnership with Cameron as to Raogimoe, and wanted to give a cheque for payment of the horse, on behalf of the partnership. Witness objected at first, and said he would settle with Cameron. Eventually, however, he accepted a cheque for £100, and gave a receipt. He had not cashed the cheque.

This concluded the case for the defence.

Counsel did not address his Honor, as the points involved were questions of fact.

In giving judgment his Honor said : "This is a case of exceedingly s;reat difficulty. I don't know how it is, but in all the cases that come before me —either civil or criminHl—in which disputes about racing are concerned, there is a lack of memory on the part oi all persons concerned, or else there is false swearing—one or the other. I don't know why engaging in horse racing should lead to this state of things—but there it is. In this case, on one side it is really contended that Homes ran the horse so as not to win, in order that he might secure it himself, or deceived the public so as to enable him to win money later. That was the suggestion. On Homes' side the suggestion was that Cameron, after.he found the horse was a valuable animal, denied his partnership and made a bogus sale to his cousin in order to deprive Homes of ownership. It is very difficult for me to determine whose statement proves the facts of the case. Tnere is this against Homes, that he raced and entered the horse as Cameron's own, knowing that by so doing, if he was an owner, he was breaking rule 63 of racing regulations, laying himself and Cameron open to disqualification, and knowing that the stakes were liable to be forfeited in the event: of a win. That seems to me to lessen his evidence considerably. As to:Goqdall, it seems extraordinary that if he' knew of the partnership, he did not, as secretary of the Rangitikei Racing Club, make the true facts known. It is also extraordinary to believe that Cameron should go to McArtney and lay the matter open to him. As to the other side, there are two things that do not make Cameron's evidence satisfactory. The corners are torn off the account produced, and that has not been properly explained to me ; and the other thing against him is the payment or fees by McDowell. His evidence does not agree with that of McDonell, and so that is not satisfactory. T find, therefore, that on both sides the evidence is far from clear." In conclusion, he said that in such cases ie was incumbent on plaintiff to produce a balance of evidence in favour of the partnership. He could not say that this had been done in this case, therefore he refused the decree and dissolved the injunction granted Homes restraining Cameron from having dealings with the horse.

In reply to Mr Cohen his Honor said he was not inclined to give damages. As to costs, he thought the proper thing to do would bo to allow £20, and witnesses' expenses and disbursements.