LIBEL ACTION

Otago Witness, Issue 3097, 23 July 1913, Page 29

LIBEL ACTION

VVOOTTON v. SIEVIER. LONDON, July 14. The court was crowded with racing notables when the case Richard Wootton versus Robert Sievier, of the Winning Post, opened. Sievier defended himself. Wootton’s counsel, in his opening, said that his client had been accused of barefaced swindling extending over a considerable period, and of robbing the public by a fraudulent arrangement with other trainers and jockeys. Wootton came to England with the highest references from Australian jockey clubs. His sons and the two Huxleys had excellent records. With regard to the suspensions Wootton’s evidence denied a conspiracy. He said he had never instructed jockeys to pull horses or make dishonest bets. His. sons often won against his betting interests. His biggest bets in England were £IOOO on Lamond for the Newmarket arid the Derby', which he lust. July 15. Wootton gave evidence that he had never instructed his son to prevent a horse from winning to run with the intention that he should not win. It was absolutely' untrue to say that he ran I.amond, knowing that the horse was unfit. Never at any time had he laid a single penny against Lamond. Sievier’s cross-examination of Wootton led to much cross-talk, especially when the defendant questioned plaintiff about his turf associates in Australia. Wootton admitted that he ’ 1 recommended the jockey Hayes as a tr aer in England, and that ho (Hayes) was subsequently convicted of an offence. The Judge reprimanded Sievier and Wootton for their rude questions and equally rude answers. Sievier asked Wootton to produce his betting records, and Wootton replied that he had none. Sievier suggested that certain persons who had been warned off English courses had only practised what plaintiff had taught them. Wootton interjected : “ It’s a lie.” Sievier : “ You have had more jockeys put -down for foul riding than any other English stable.’’ Wootton : “ My boys have been suspended, but they have not lost prestige. They are still employed by the best people.” The Judge : “ But the best people may not have any choice.” Wootton : “ They want the best jockeys.” The crowd in court frequently applauded Wootton, whereupon the Judge threatened to clear the court. Wootton, in the course of his evidence, said that he regarded foul riding in the case of lads as only the result of fiveranxiety. One of his apprentices had been fined £SO for not weighing in after winning a race, but that was due to carelessness. Witness was temporarily ordered out of the witness-box for interrupting his counsel, who was addressing his Honor relative to the production of his (Wootton’s) bank books. The Judge ordered their production. Plaintiff, resuming his evidence, said that it was a downright concoction to say that his son had pulled up Stick In the Cambridgeshire of 1907. Witness admitted that his earnings in England had averaged £5030 a year. Lord Derby, in the course of his evidence. said that on one occasion ho had thought that Frank Wootton had not made the best use of his horse, but he never suspected the lad of pulling the animal. It was not an easy case to deal with. 'J he hearing was here adjourned till next day. July 16. In the Wootton-Sievier case Sievier, in cross-examining, sought to prove that Wootton iiad won several heavy bets, Wootton admitted that the income Tax

Commissioners claimed the tax on £17,09(1 of betting earnings, but their claim was disallowed on appeal. He denied that h» had ever betted against his own horses. Counsel for the Winning Post cross* examined Wootton regarding his banking account, and pointed oiit that £59,827 had passed into Wootton’s account ;in three years—l9lo-12. Wootton admitted that he had sent between £30,000 and £50,000 to Australia during the past few years, and that his son Frank had £31,000 invested in Australia. Witness also admitted that possibly these large sumj came from bookmakers, but he denied winning even £25,000 in bets in six years. Frank Wootton, in his evidence, stated that he had never pulled a horse in hit life. July 17. Sievier, arguing from Excelsior’s per* formance in the Welter at the Newmarket meeting, said he ought to have won th< Cambridgeshire Stakes. Mr Justice Darling : This all assumes that horses run with mathematical precision, and therefore the best authority would be the Astronomer Royal.—(Daughter.) It is all an assumption that horses are atoms thrown in space, and that it k possible to calculate their pace at any date. Mr llniton, a racehorse owner, giving evidence in the Wootton versus Sievier case, stated that he told Sievier that his criticisms of Wootton about Lomond’s running wore wrong. Witness at the outset permitted Wootton to try his horses against others, but, owing to a good deal of unpleasant talk, lie withdrew that permission. The stable had backed Lomond for the Newmarket and Derby. The horsa appeared fit. He also backed three other non-winners in the Derby. In neither had he the slightest ground to suspect Wuottou or his sons. July 18. A trainer named Dawson suggested, in reply to the judge, that the lengthening of the stirrup leathers might cure foul riding. Other evidence was given to the effect that horses sometimes took a dislike to their riders owing to the latter punishing them during training operations. Another point raised was whether the public wn« entitled to information from owners regarding which horses were being merely run for practice when onlv more or less fit. July 19. Lord Durham, in the course of his evidence, said that reckless riding, and net foul riding, was more common than it was 20 years ago. The Jockey Club had not heard of a charge of pulling for some years. Owners were entitled to run an unfit home two or three times for the purpose of seasoning it. Lord Lonsdale said no sportsman would continue to run a horse if it were shown to be unfit. Stanley Wootton, Smyth, and other jockeys denied receiving instructions from Wootton except to win or to get a place. Several trainers denied the existence of a ring. Sievier declined to cross-examine Stanley Wootton, his action eliciting tu« following remark by plaintiff s counsel :—• “ You charged him with pulling, but now you refuse to cross-examine him.”