The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 1867.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 14, 17 January 1867, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 1867.

' RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. [Before J. Poynter, Esq., R.M.] Wednesday, January 16. Harley v. Porthouse. Mr. Pitt, who appeared for plaintiff, said, this was an action to recover £10, the amount of the deposit placed in the hands of the defendant, as stakeholder in a recent footrace. As there was no law bearing ou the case, and as it was to be judged of bythe rules and customs observed in reference to foot-races, he would suggest to the defendant that the matter be referred to competent judges, the plaintiff being willing so to refer it. After a discussion and no arrangement having been come to, the magistrate said he would take the evidence. Mr. Pitt said his client being a swift runner, in Nelson, and having been challenged by Mr. Davis, who offered to^back a runner named Lloyd, for £5 aside, he accepted the challenge, and the match came off on Saturday week last. Mr. Harley won the race ancl claimed the stakes of the defendant. The defendant objected to hand over the money on the ground thac the other side disputed the fact that plaintiff had won, although they had not claimed the stakes, which they ought to have done if their man won the race. The fact was it was not a tie, in which case the race would have to be run over again, but it was a case of one runner winning, and the question was, who was he ? If Mr. Harley had not won, the other side was entitled to claim the stakes, which they had not done, a conclusive proof they had no claim. Mr. Davis had proposed it should be a drawn race, but his client saw no fun in that sort of thing after having fairly won it. Evidence would be adduced to prove that plaintiff won it, having come in several yards in advance of his competitor. An objection had beeD rai. ed that Harley interfered with Lloyd's running, but it would be disproved, and shown that the plaintiff was fairly entitled to the stakes. The plaintiff -was sworn, and said : On the Ist of January I was in the company of Davis who talked loudly of Lloyd's racing, and offered to back him for *£5. ~ He did back him, and a match was arranged for £5 a side. The money was placed in Pratt's hands as umpire and referee before the match came off, it was then held by Porthouse. The day of ,the race Pratt went away, and Porthouse was appointed in his place. He held the whole of the money when the race was run, Pratt having held half of ifc at first. The race took place at Milton Grove, in the public street. There was no stipulation whatever, we were placed in the centre, and had to run to a given point. There was uo line drawn or anything of the sort. I got in first by several yards. I demanded the stakes about five minutes after I got in, and as soon as I put on my coat. Defendant said he must refer me to the umpires, and that the race must be run over again, because Davis disputed it on the ground that I crossed Lloyd. I did not cross him. I merely ran in front of him. I have been iu the habit of rtinniug at foot-races. I have run in lots of them, as an amateur. I claim to be entitled to the stakes. To the Court : I never heard of any rules relating to foot-racing in Nelson. I was in first, won the race, aud demand the money. I have run before, on several occasions in Nelson, and touched my competitors several times. I always understood that the man who is first has a right to run where he likes. I never heard it disputed before. To Mr. Porthouse: At the starting point there was talk of tossing for sides, but we chose sides to start from. I did not continue to run on the side I smarted from, but I did not interfere with the other. I said Davis disputed. I was not aware there were two umpires and a referee. I think Murrell and Bentley held the strap. I appointed none. You said the race must be run over again, when I asked for the moaey. To Mr. Pitt : I touched Lloyd, but I did not foul him. Not a word was mentioned about where we had to run. To Mr. Porthouse : You offered me my £5-note several times. You told me on Monday last up to that time no other person had claimed the money ; the race must be run over again, or you would give me my money back again. The race was run last Saturday week.

Thomas Mills : I saw the race in question. I have seen a good many foot-races. I consider Harley won this race, as he came in first. I had a bet on Lloyd ; I considered I lost my bet, and paid my money. In other foot-races I have seeu tbe parties touch each other on the elbows and shoulders, but I never heard the winner being disqualified, unless for foul play. To the Court : I heard no objection taken at the time. There was after the race was over. To Mr. Pitt : Harley was about 4 yards in advance*of Lloyd at the winning point, it might be more or less. I paid the money before I heard the dispute. J. B. Dunn : I was present at this race. I have seen many foot-races. I consider Mr. .Harley won this. I saw him touch Lloyd, but it was not sufficient to stop him, impede his running, or throw him out of his stride. To the Court : lam not up in rules relating to these matters, and I never heard of any such as those of a jockey club. To Mr. Porthouse : I was ahout 60 yards from them when I saw Harley touch Lloyd, who did not stop or lose his stride. His Worship : If he was stopped he ought to have pulled up, bufc the question is are tliere any rules. Edward Atmore . I have witnessed several foot races. My brother rau a race with Bond, the Suffolk Stag. Tlie first race Bond got in front, won the race, aud was not disqualified. The next race ropes were used to prevent Bond from gettiug before him. They did not touch. I have not known the grouud marked out in Nelson. There are no general rules here, but in England you mast not foul a man and throw hiin out of his pace.' Sergeant Nash : I saw this race, standing near the winning post. I did not see Harley cross Lloyd. He did not cross him but kept in front of him. He crossed the road but not the man ; they started from opposite sides of the road. During the race Harley was a-head from the time he crossed the road and came in several yards a-head. To Mr. Porthouse : I did not see Lloyd run off the road on the beaten track. Mr. Augarde : During my residence in England, I have witnessed and run foot races too. If one man gets in front of another it does not disqualify him, unless he fouls him, that, is, tripping him, putting a foot before him, pushing him on oue side, or striking him. If one ruuner touches another and is before him, it is not foul play, unless the ground is defined. The runner who gets a clear distance before is allowed to touch if it. does not foul the one coming after. Mere touching is nothing. I have seen two men fall down together. For the defence the following witnesses were called. H. D. Lloyd : I was backed by Davis to run with Harley. The match came off and we made a false start. I then got the lead. In 20 or 30 yards from the start Harley fouled me, knocking me right out of my stride. I caught him and he did the same again. I caught him a third time and he pushed me right into the grass off the road. I then pulled up. Eveiybody called out foul, afc 10 or 15 yards from the end where I pulled up. To Mr. Porthouse : I was quite willing to run it over again. To Mr. Pitt : I did not claim the stakes, because it was not my place. I complained to Harley and Porthouse. I have run at Wakapuaka. At the beach I started to run and fell down. I know nothing of the rules of running. It was the crowd, not I, who called out foul. I have seen some rules in the illustrated sporting papers which describe fouling. I did not run to the end ,- I pulled up 15 | yards this side of the winning post. I. did not claim the stakes. I did not run to the end because he fouled me a second time. The first time he struck me in the side, intentionally, with his elbow. I was run right off the road ou to the grass. John Devon port : I witnessed the race in question. I saw them start on different sides of the road. I saw them foul each other about 30 yards from the start. Harley crossed the road, got in front of Lloyd, and, I fancy, hit him. They ran 40 yards after this, and Harley kept in front all the way till Lloyd left off. They were close together when Harley got before htm. I understand the rules of running, which are that each man keeps his own ground. In Euglaud and Australia the ground is staked to keep each man on his own ground. I have not seen

ifc done in New Zealand. They draw up articles when they make matches. To the Court : I saw fouling once only. I considered it a foul. Harley ran the other right off the road into the grass. ' To Mr. Pitt : I was standing at the winning end when I saw the foul. I think Harley hit Lloyd, as the latter stopped. The latter was three or four yards behind Harley when he stopped. He seemed as if he did not care to overtake him. I did not see Harley foul Lloyd a second time. I have never seen the ground staked here. It is not fair for one man to get before another ; they generally toss for sides. I consider it a foul if one man touches another, although, he does not throw him out of his stride. I had no bets on the race. Charles Laudon : I saw this race on the sth instant. They made a false start, Lloyd getting first and Harley refusing to go further. They started again seven or eioht feet apart. I ran by the side of Harley. About 30 yai-ds from home he crossed over and deliberately struck Lloyd iu the ribs with his elbow. I then cried out foul. Lloyd made an attempt to pass Harley, who fouled hira again in the same way, pushing him on to the grass with his foot, and tried to throw him over. I was backing Harley at the time. To Mr. Porthouse : I consider crossing on to an opponent's ground is a foul. Itis not allowed by the rules tbat I know of. I had one bet ; it was with Gough. To Mr. Pitt : I never heard him raise an objection, he poiuted to Mr. Porthouse, the referee. I have had 12 years experience in foot-racing, with and without a line. If a runner is 6or 7 yards a-head he may cross another man, an honest runner must not go further than the middle of the road. The first foul made Lloyd shake, and put him out of his course. Harley was on Lloyd's ground when ho fouled him a second time. I saw him strike Lloyd with his elbow. I was running alongside at the time. Ifc is not fair for one man to strike another on his own ground. To the Court : In horse-racing fouling causes a man to lose the race, but not in foot-racing. The Magistrate : I feel much at a loss in the case, but I am obliged to take the evidence as it is. There appear to be no rules to refer to. Rules should have been provided, but if there are none, we must be guided by aualogy. One swears oue thing, and another another thin?. All thafc I can do is to weigh the conflicting statements, and endeavor to ascertain which i.s right. Mr. Pitt said if his worship would adjourn the case, he would be able to call two witnesses who were now out of town, who were experienced in such matters, in Nelson and elsewhere. He would now call an independent witness to rebut the statement that Harley had struck Lloyd two or three times. His Worship : I have no objection to adjourn the case. I am anxious to do justice to both parties. Joseph Moran : I was chosen umpire by Davis, Bentley was the other at least he said so. Porthouse was referee aud stakeholder. After the race was run, we decided it was a foul race. I saw two foulings, at least. The first was 30 yards from the start, when Harley struck hira off the ground, with his elbow, on to the grass. To the Court : I know nothing of the rules of racing. They agreed to run on their -own ground. Lloyd told Harley, if he did not jostle him, he would come pretty near if he did not wiu. To Mr. Pitt : I told Lloyd to walk over the ground and claim the money. I know it is not fair for one man to strike another. The course was 100 yards. W. Davis: I am interested like Harley. I waut the money and he wants it. I made the match. I told you not to give up the mouey, after the race was run. My reason was to give advice, and on the ground that Harley fouled him. The umpires and referee decided they should run again. I did not hear Harley claim the money on the ground. I did not claim it because ifc was the business of the referee. I have not consented that Harley should have his £5 back again. Mr. J. M. Bichardson was called by Mr. Pitt: He said he saw the runners come together. Harley got in front of the other, but did not cross him or touch him that he saw, and he saw the race throughout. Harley was in front all the time, and came in 5 or 6 yards in front of Lloyd, the latter running to that distance

certainly. At this stage of the proceedings the case was adjourned till Wednesday next, to enable Mr. Pitt to bring forward his witnesses.