TURF GOSSIP.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1190, 21 December 1894, Page 23

TURF GOSSIP.

By “Gipsy King.”

RULE 56. It is seldom that nominators of horses are . harassed by protests arising through an infringement of Rule 56, which reads: “ Every entry shall state the name, or assumed name, of the owner,” etc., etc. This is, surely, plain enough, and is, I think, understood by most trainers who nominate, and even run hoi ses in their own name, when it is well known they are owned by clients of the stables.

However, I am not ventilating the subject for the purpose of encouraging protests in this direction, because, as far as the West Coast and the Wairarapa districts are concerned, there are few who know as much about the ownership of the different horses running as I do, and it cannot be said that I publicly proclaim the fact that so-and-so is the owner of such-and-such a horse, when I know the horse is nominated in the trainer’s name. I exercise what discretionary intelligence I have, and leave such items unsaid, and I think it will be admitted that a sporting writer has to use a considerable amount of tact in dealing with matters that may seriously affect or embarrass those who indulge in the “ sport of kings,” but, owing to the position they may occupy in commercial circles, it is not wise that it should be known to the world

that they are “ doing a little bit of racing.” ' There is nothing criminal in owning a 'j racehorse and running it in the name of a )■' friend or its trainer. I should not have brought this matter forward but for noticing that ” the correspondent of a ) northern contemporary has, during the last ) two weeks, given three owners “ away ” by publishing their names when they do not appear on the race-card or nominationpapers as “ owners ” for the meetings where they had horses engaged. Consequently, when unprincipled racing men notice this, they may lay low with a protest, to be lodged the next time the horses win. I do not think the correspondent referred to would like to see such a thing done, but if he continues to put “ invisible ” owners away, something of the sort will happen. A funny thing in connection with one gentleman he names as being the owner of a certain horse is the fact that this gentleman imparts religious teaching to the rising generation of a country-village each Sabbath afternoon, and I know myself he is a most conscientious man, but if his friends hear that he is the owner of a racehorse they may be inclined to doubt his earnestness. The. same gentleman’s sister is a prominent member of the Women’s Christian Association, and would also be horrified to hear that her brother was even indirectly connected with the turf. The truth of the matter is that the gentleman bred the horse which has come under the notice of this correspondent, and, having leased the horse, has no more to do with its racing career than the “ Man in the Moon.” THE HEEETAUNG A RACE MEETING. I venture to say that it is not often that sporting take any particular interest in the passing of r race programmes, as hitherto it has been merely a question of a renewal of the permit to hold a race meeting, and even as late as Thursday last, when the Wellington Metropolitan Racing Club held their usual monthly meeting for the purpose of transacting" district business, the same unconcern was noticeable, but on Friday morning, when it became generally known that the Metropolitan Club for the Wellington district had refused to grant the Taratahi-Carterton::. Racing Club a permit to hold a race meeting on January 31st, and had granted ohe to the Heretaunga Cavalry Club for a race meeting to be held on the Hutt racecourse on January 26th, there was an expression of genuine surprise in local sporting circles. The surprise was all the more genuine because very few were aware that the Heretaungas contemplated making an application for a permit; in fact, it was generally thought that this club was defunct, but, apparently, it lias only been dormant, since 1891. Owing to the curtailment of race meetings which comes into force next season, and the knowledge that the Metropolitan possessed, that the Taratahi-Carterton Club had recently expended about <£soo in putting their race-track and appointments in order, it was taken for granted by sporting people in the Wairarapa district, and in Wellington also, that the programme would be passed, so as to give the club a 'chance of recouping some of their heavy outlay, as they will not have such another opportunity. It has been urged by some that as the Carterton Club had submitted a programme which totalled <£4oo in prize- 1 money, that they could not make any profit on the proposed meeting, and that the Metropolitan Club did the Taratahi Club a kindness by not passing the progtamme. But any loss on the meeting concerned the Taratahi-Carterton Club only, and the sportsmen in the district came down handsomely with offers of support, and guaranteed the club against loss; The public would probably never have troubled themselves about the matter if the programmes for these two meetings had both been refused, but for a genuine club to bo refused, and a semi-proprietary club to be granted a permit, puzzled them. Many hint that the Wellington Metropolitan-

Club had an ulterior motive in passing the Heretaunga programme, because the club would derive some benefit from the rental of the Hutt Park racecourse, but such insinuations do not hold good, as the Wellington Club are not short of money. On the other hand, they have a large credit balance. A number of people having asked me if I knew why the Taratahi-Carterton programme had net been passed, - and not being able to answer their queries, I spoke to one of the gentlemen who were at the meeting on Thursday, and asked him if he would kindly give some explanation, so that I would be able to disabuse the minds of those who were inclined to think that everything had not been fair and above board. The explanation that was kindlytendered to me was to the effect that the Taratahi-Carterton Club had just recently held a meeting, and as the club had hitherto been satisfied with one meeting a year, the committee saw no good reason why the number of meetings for this club should be increased. The Heretaunga Club’s programme was passed because, the Porirua Club having declined to hold a meeting this year, this was the only suburban meeting that would be held in the Wellington district. The gentleman whom I consulted remarked that as the TaratahiCarterton Club had made a profit of <£2oo oa their last race meeting he thought they should “let well alone.” I have stated the particulars of this case as briefly as possible, and, while holding the opinion that the Metropolitan Club has a perfect right to refuse or pass programmes, as they may deem expedient, it appears to me that passing a programme for a club that has not as much as a race-track, in preference to a programme submitted by a bona fide Racing Club, whose profits are solely devoted to racing, is not exactly equity. However, I am hopeful that if the TaratahiCarterton Club were to represent to the Metropolitan Club that they wish to take advantage of the only opportunity lat occurs for holding a second meeting, their second application may meet with more favour. RULE 22 (II.). The question arises, in connection with the Heret aunga Rifles’ Hack Meeting, which is to be held on the Hutt Park Racecourse on January 26th, if the provisions of Rule 22 (II.) are strictly adhered to. A portion of the rule quoted applies to this club, and reads as follows : “ And in no case shall any programme be passed unless it clearly appears from the balance-sheet that all moneys received by the club have been expended in stakes, making improvements to the course and stands, or payment for interest and sinking fund on purchase money, or generally in the interest of racing.” The last meeting the “ Heretaunga Rifles’ Hack Club ” held was on December sth, 1891, when a total of 61 horses competed in eight events, the prize-money totalling <£lss, while the totalisator investments amounted to .£2508. If there was any profit on that meeting, how was it allocated ? The club (?) has no track or buildings, and the rule is so strictly drawn up that any diversion of the profits from “ the interests of racing ” to any other fund would mean' a gross infringement of the Rules of Racing." ETHEL OR YOUNG DINAH.

When writing last week that an exchange had reported what appeared to be an “ equine romance,” with reference to the purchase of the Australian mare Ethel, which now turns out to be Young Dinah, I doubted if the mare's had been “ mixed up,” and could not understand how the auctioneer for the sale was to blame in any way. Fortunatelv, since writing my last notes, I have had the pleasure of meeting Mr John Cotter, the popular Manawatu sportsman for whom the mare was purchased, and in reply to my query about the mix up he verj courteously gave me the following particulars as to how the mystery was found out.

Ifc appears, a few years ago, Mr D. S. Wallace purchased from the St. Alban's stud, amongst other mares, Ethel and "Young Dinah, and they were sent to that gentleman’s stud farm. Some little time afterwards his stud groom asked which was Ethel'and which was Young Dinah, and as both mares were not altogether unlike each other in colour, it is surmised that Mr Wallace made a mistake in the mares and pointed out Young Dinah as Ethel. Consequently at the Newmarket sales at Melbourne in November 1892 Ethel's name appeared in the catalogue when really it was Young Dinah that was being submitted, and the mare was purchased by Mr Robert Stevens acting on behalf of Mr Cotter (the price, I think, being about 25 guineas). When Mr Cotter recently visited the famous St. Albans stud (where Trenton is located), during a conversation with the stud groom, one of the oldest servants at the St. Albans stud farm, the latter happened to ask Mr Cotter if he had any thoroughbred mares, and Mr Cotter replied that a friend had purchased for him the two mares Ethel auc] Nectarine. It was then that the old groom informed "Mr Cotter that Ethel was still in Australia. It transpired that the mardjwhich wasjgupposed to be Young Dinah had recently b<Sm taken to St. Albans on a visit to one of the stallions, and the stud groom,lwho knew both mares, informed Mr W. R. Wilson's manager (Mr McDonald) that there must be a mistake, as the mare that had arrived was Ethel and not Young Dinah, and this controversy was going on about the time Mr Cotter appeared on the scene, which simplified matters somewhat, and for the purpose of. identifying the mare Mr James Wilson senr. (of First King renown), who bred the mares and told them to Mr W. R. •Wilson, was communicated with, and he and his son, Mr James Wilson junr. (owner of after inspecting the mare were quite satisfied that the mare brought to St. Albans as Young Dinah was Ethel. Then, as Mr; Walter Hickenb.. tham had puichased the supposed Young Dinah for 115 guineas, be was communicated with, and a meeting arranged with Mr Archie Yui le, the popular blood stock salesman, who had auctioned both the mares at different sales, and after a “ corroboreo,” Mr Hickenbotham said he recognised that an unintentional mistake

had occurred, but as he had long been employed by Mr Wallace as trainer, he would "be content to keep Ethel, and as Mr Cotter was only too pleased to keep Young Dinah, the little mystery, thanks to the generosity lof Mr Walter Hickenbotham, ended most happily. Mr Archie Yuille waited on the V.R.C. Committee with respect to the nomination of the supposed Young Dinah’s progeny, and as Mr Yuille is the publisher of the Australian Stud Book, the V.R.C. were quite prepared to rectify the nominations provided the error was likewise corrected in the Australian Stud Book, so that the nomination of the colt Wellshot by Trenton—Young Dinah for the Champion Stakes will require to be altered so that his breeding will appear Trenton—E hel. I inadvertantly stated last week that Ethel is by The Marquis, but she is by King of the Ring from Elsie by The Marquis (sire of The Painter), and then goes on to the Panic blood. Young Dinah, born in 1881, is also by King of the Ring (sire of Fiist King) from Seaspray, by The Peer from Musidora, by The Premier (imp.) from Dinah by Gratis, &c. Seaspray won the Y.R.C. St. Leger Stakes, of one mile and three-quarters and 132 yards, for Mr James Wilson sen. in 1874 snd also the Adelaide St. Leger, and is dam of Caspian (by King of the Ring), winner of the Y.R.C. St. Leger (1880), Maiden Plate, A.J.C. Plate (three miles), also of Baltic, Western Princess, Vistula, Murmur, Lady Golightly and Savernak, all winners. Musidora, the grand dam of Young Dinah, was a great jperformer, and is dam of Miss Jessie, Y.R.C. Derby winner 1871, and of Briseis, winner of the V.R.C. Derby, Oaks and Melbourne Cup 1876. It will thus be seen that Mr Stevens made a most lucky purchase for Mr Cotter. ' Before leaving Australia, Young Dinah was stinted to the Yattendon horse Calma, a 1 Caulfield Cup winner, and the mare produced a splendid filly foal, which was a yearling this foaling, but during Mr Cotter’s absence, while witnessing Patron’s Melbourne Cup Race, the filly met with an accident which ended fatally. Young Dinah has visited Strephon (by Ingomar) this season.

Besides Young Dinah, Mr Cotter has Nectarine, a beautiful mare by St. Albans —Horticulture, and a good performer in Victoria ; her two-year-old colt by Calma ; Caller Herrin (dam of Banner and Gold Cup) ; and her yearling by the Dauphin ; also a two-year-old filly, full sister to The Artist. Nectarine has a foal by Forester, and as the mare was a great sprinter, this youngster should be a flyer, and this season the mare has visited the Musket horse Derringer. Since writing these lines, I learn that Seaspray died just recently from inflammation of the bowels and kidneys while on a visit to the English imported horse Pilgrim’s Progiess, by Isonomy—Pilgrimage.