D.J.C COMMITTEE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2102, 7 June 1894, Page 31

D.J.C COMMITTEE.

The mott'jly meeting wai held on Thursday Dight, and attended by Messrs J. H izlett (in the chair), H. Gourley, P. Miller, F. Meenan, R. Wilson, W. H 'Taggart, L. Made m, J. B. Reid, Hon. T. Fergus, J. Cook, J. Fleming, and J. Mills. The Tapanui Club asked that F. R. White and the horse Conjurer be placed on the forfeit; list for the sum of five guineas due as fees. — Agreed to. The Taieri Club wrote stating that Peter Mitchell and Harry Tanner had been disqualified for cash betting a*t the last race meeting. — Disqualification endorsed. The Committee resolved that Edward Brown, James Godfrey, J. M'Guiness, and A. Oudaille be disqualified during the pleasure of the club for cash betting at the Birthday meeting. A further resolution was to the effect that certain persons who were alleged to have been caught jumping the fence be prosecuted for trespass. The Vincent Club stated that ib Bad decided to remove the disqualification from Thomas Aitcheson and the trotting horse Second Attempt, imposed on January 2, 1890, the removal of of the disqualification to date from January 1, 1895 —Consideration deferred. Applications were received from certain bookmakers asking for the removal of their disqualifications. — It was decided that before the question was considered the secretary bring up a report for nexb meeting showing how far the disqualified persons had complied with their sentence. The subcommittee appointed at last meeting brought up a report as to the working expenses of the club. Consideration postponed till next monthly meeting. STARTING PRICE BETTING. TO THE BDITOtt. Sir,— l will esteem it a' favour if you will give me your opinion on the following in order to settle a dispute : — For a race meeting held recently the usual slips were issued by the bookmakers. The winner of one of the events was not on the slip, and the bookmakers claim the wagers on the other horses. Do you think they are entitled to do so ? Their argument to me is that they are not responsible for errors. I may state there was no such proviso on the slip. They also state that if some other horse had won they would not have been able to lay this particular horse omitted. Personally, from a backer's point of view I do not think it fair that the public should be slated without having a chance to win. As to slips, do you not think that if they undertake to provide them at all they should provide correct ones, or distinctly state on them that should the winner not ba on the card they will claim all wagers just the same, so that if the public wish to bet they will know under what; conditions they are doing so. Otherwise does it not open the road to a possibility of horses being left out by design ? In ahorr, what do you consider should be done — that the bookmakers should pay on the wn er on the slip— i.e. the second tnT*e ? ti-n. 1 ; b 'ts shou'd b ■ tfuulared off ? or lastly that backer* should pay ? — I am, &c.» Ajax. Dunedin, May 31 [This subject is dealt with in Talk of the Day, —Ed. O.W.]