LIBEL ACTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8482, 17 July 1913, Page 10

LIBEL ACTION

WOOTTON VERSUS SIEYIER. By Tokgraph—Press Association—Copyright LONDON, July 14. At the hearing of the libel action Wootton v. Sievier, tho Court was crowded with notable racing people. Sievier defended himself. Wootton’s counsel, in opening tho case for plaintiff, said his client had been accused of haiefaced swindling extending over a considerable period, and of robbing the public by a fraudulent arrangement with other trainers and jockeys. Wootton, said counsel, came to England with the highest ro» forenoee from Australian jockey clubs, and his sons and the two Huxleys (jockeys) had excellent records. With regard to suspensions, Wootton’s evidence would'deny that there had been a conspiracy, or that he had instructed the jockeys to pull horses, or had made dishonest bets. His sons had often won against his betting interests. His biggest bets in England were a thousand pounds on Lamond for the Newmarket Handicap and Derby, which he lost. Further hearing of tho case was adjourned.

WOOTTON’S EVIDENCE. LONDON, July 15. Wootton gave evidence that he never instructed his son to prevent a horse from winning or to run with the intention that it shouldn't win. It was absolutely untrue that he ran Lomond knowing the animal to be unfit. Ht never at any time laid a single penny against Lomond. Plaintiff alleges that in Siever’s paper, tho "Winning Post," there weie published statements to the effect that Wootton and other trainers had conspired to decide the winnine and losing of races, and alleging that Wootton directed his son and other apprentices to pull horses not backed by him. and that Wootton also ran half-trained horses when he did not want them to win. In May Wootton asked the court to order Sievier to give fuller particulars of the statement of defence. Sievier appealed, but the Appeal Court decided against him.