THE SCORN-BOBADIL WAGER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2356, 20 April 1899, Page 36

THE SCORN-BOBADIL WAGER.

London Referee takes up this subject. I believe, writes the editor, that the Victorian Club's rules are very similar to ours. On my reading of them it is cruel if the bookmaker ' has to pay ; because in betting not only the hard and fast law, but the spirit of a wager is brought into- consideration." To again take the side' of the case unfavourable to the backer, let us ask whether it is within the fcounds of possibility that he would not have "put in a claim for the lot if both horses had Jvon. Wouldn't anyone argue for him that, win or lose, the money must come to the same each" side? The odds against the two horses with the punter's stake added in after the first event must be identical, no matter which of Jthe two, a 6 to 4 "on or 100 to 1 against winner, starts or finishes the double. Would he not have been aggrieved if Bobadil had .won the Derby, and Scorn not running, he bad not been on the first, to the extent of his tenner? It was not even as though the wire eaid simply, "£lO Scorn, all on Bobadil." but each race was clearly set forth. Surely he would have felt a very illused party if he had not drawn in case both came off, and that is a strong reason why he ought to lose pphen one is beaten though* the other wins. 'As it is, he gains £60 on one-half of his lorder, and the losing part of it is ordered to be counted, not executed, as it might well have been. I should stand on the backer's intentions, and the fact that carrying them jout in their entirety could not make any "^difference whether you backed Scorn first or £Bobadil. Further, the bookmaker, failing bis plea of doing- the best he could for his client being accepted, might stand on the bard and fast reading and argue that the commission could not be executed in its entirety, if you followed its strict text as interpreted by the authorities, and so it must be cancelled" altogether. If I had sent the, wire and after Bobadil winning Scorn walked over pnd "was a non starter and I could not get my money on the first-named, I should hold ' tnyself badly treated. Let .us imagine that " pur Der.by^ and Oaks are to be run on one day, and an order is given {or £10 on A in the Oaks, all diTB in the Derby. B wins the', Derby, and A subsequently takes the Oaks, but the fielder says- -" No accumulator ; the Derby was over before the Oaks came on." Or B wins the Derby and A does not Btart for the Ladies' Race. Am I not on IB as my telegram clearly showed that I jsrahed to be? Would not the obvious intention of the order be recognised?