“RINGING-IN” CHARGES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3662, 20 May 1924, Page 24

“RINGING-IN” CHARGES.

THE ALL-SMOKE CASE. CHRISTCHURCH, May 12. At the sitting of the Supreme Court, in the cases connected with the Look Out, Eulius. and All Smoke charges of ringingtn and conspiracy, Mr Justice Adams, addressing the grand jury, said that in regard to the All Smoke case if certain evidence was true All Smoke was not in the box when the horse was handed over to g man named Fairlie at Otahuhu. A black trotter taken bv Capes and Williamson to the Criterion Hotel had been identified as the horse that actually ran in the Introductory Handicap at Otahuhu under the name of All Smoke. It came in second, End' was entitled to a prize of £SO, which, on account of suspicions, was withheld. Williamson and Capes went together to the boiling-down works at Panprure and left B black horse there to be destroyed. Parts of its hide were examined, and it was found that they belonged to a brown horse which had been dyed black. Capes sent a horse to Tucker in Christchurch, but nothing was known about that horse. In regard to the second charges, the Eulius case, they were against the same men as were accused in the All Smoke case, with another man, W. P. Capies. In that, case it was alleged that the four accused nominated Eulius for a race and substituted Willie Lincoln for it. If the evidence in the third case was correct, the accused had been ringing the chc -ges on their own names and on the names of the horses. May 13. The last phase of the widespread investigations which have been carried out over the last three months regarding trotting methods in New Zealand was entered upon in the Supreme Court to-day. A commencement was made with the trial of the men implicated in the ringing-in allegations. The pharges involve four race (meetings. That regarding the Otahuhu meeting was taken first. This is a case in which a hide is an exhibit. The assumption is that a horse which once lived in that hide raced under the name of All Smoke. The men concerned —Alfred Tucker, Charles H. Capes, and William Williamson - —are charged with having conspired with each other to defraud the Otahuhu Trotting Club by substituting an unknown horse for All Smoke. Mr Justice Adams was on the bench. Mr A. T. Donnelly conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr A. C. Hanlon (Dunedin) appeared for Williamson and Capes and Mr C. S. Thomas for Tucker. Tne Crown Prosecutor said that Williamson had been engaged as a trkiner and driver, but had also followed other occupations. Capes was a fruiterer, and Tucker was employed by him. In recent years the 6port of trotting had increased in popularity, until it had become one of the gfeat pastimes of New Zealand. The charges, therefore, had been given great prominence in the newspapers, and had been freely and widely discussed, and most members of the community had arrived at some opinion of their own as to the merits of the charges. It was his duty to remind the jury that they were the judges of the three accused, and it was their duty to dismiss from their minds any preconceived opinions that they might have formed about the cases. It Would be a regrettable thing if the notoriety attained by a person prejudiced his trial. The evidence was circumstantial, as in a conspiracy case it was impossible to obtain any direct evidence. The case for the Crown in this instance was based on the actions and conduct of these three men. Ringing-:n was a despicable and mean offence, because it was a fraud on everyone who went to the racecourse. If it were proved that the accused planned to ring in a horse it meant that they attempted to put their hands in the pockets of every person on the racecourse. The Prosecutor proceeded to review the accused’s connection with All Smoke. He said the name of the horse that ran was not known, as it had been destroyed. From what was known of the real Ail Smoke, however, it was certain that he would not have appeared as the winner of horse races. He was a bad horse with a worse record, and no honest, intelligent person would have backed him to win a race in a big meeting like the Auckland one. In Christchurch Capes engaged a man named Bennett to drive the horse at Auckland. Bennett asked what was the name of the horse, and Capes said it was something they had been keeping. He said he would not tell Bennett the horse’s name then, as he wanted the horse to pay something. Later Bennett called at Capes s shop and got his boat ticket and £5 for his train fare. This was a statement made by Bennett recently, and was not the one which he made in the lower court. After the race meeting Williamson and Capes were seen going to the boilingdown works with a horse, which was destroyed, and subsequently the hide was handed over to the police. It could be seen from the hide that the horse had been painted up. Underneath the black a bay colour could be noticed when the hair was ruffle!. The real All Srnoke was discovered by Detective Gibson on the premises of a man named M’Donald, and was outside the court for the jury to see if they desired. Referring again to the evidence of the driver, the Crown Prosecutor said that in the lower court Bennett’s evidence was that he was not retained in Christchurch -to drive the horse, but that Capes asked him to drive shortly before the race. Since then Bennett had given notice that he proposed to alter his evidence, and through his solicitor he had forwarded a statement of what he now said was the true story—namely, that he was specially engaged in Christchurch. The Crown Prosecutor added that the chain of circumstantial evidence had no weak link, and whatever counsel for the defence might say. the dumb witness of the painted hide could not be escaped. Robert Les'ie Absolum, secretary of the Otahuhu Trotting Club, said that the club held races on Novamber 21 and 24. The first race on the first day was the Introductory Handicap in harness, for trotters that had not done better than 2.28 for a mile. All Smoke and Wild Mou were nominated for this race, and All Smoke was entered for the Innovation Handicap, the first race on the second day. Regarding All Smoke A. Tucker was given as the owner and J. M Donald as the trainer. The horse was by Jingle from Palm Bell. J. M’Donald was given as the owner-trainer of Wild Mon. Wild Moa was scratched On the first day bv a person signing himself J. M’Donald. per C. Shaw. Lord Robert (48yds behind) won the Introductory Handicap, and All Smoke on the limit, was second. All Smoke, on the

second day, started from 108yds behind in a, saddle race with W. Williamson up. All Smoke did the mile and a-half in 3min 45 2-ssec. Witness explained that the stakes won on the first day had been retained by the club. Tucker, when he made inquiries about the stakes, was told that the stakes were withheld on account of his having destroyed All Smoke without notifying the committee. Mr Hanlon: When a man nominates a horse do particulars from the form go into the racebook ? —Y es. Who does it?—The secretary. There were stipendiary stewards at Otahuhu ? —Yes. The birdcage stewards see that the horses answer to the details on the racebooks?—Yes. Who was steward on the first dav?— Mr Wilson. He wasn’t able to do it all day?—That is so. He drinks a little?—Yes. He was removed from his position, and Mr Wells was placed in the job?—l believe ho was told to cease work. What is All Smoke described as in the racebook?—As a bay gelding. All Smoke was entered as a black gelding?—Yes. Was any report made by the stipendiary stewards ? —No. At Otahuhu a black horse can race for a bay one, and no one notices it?—The letter “b” in the book may mean “black?”— It may have been a printer’s error. Is “blk” the way to describe a black horse, if no mistake has been made?—Yes. Was there the same error on each day?— Yes. ; When a race is concluded the three horses are inspected by the stipendiary stewards?—lt is not usually the practice. It doesn’t seem that much notice was taken of this horse?—l didn’t see it myself. I was busy. You went to the boiLing-down works afterwards? —Yes. Did you look for shoes?—No. Did you speak to a blacksmith about them ?—No. rou were told that the horse had been boiled down?—Yes. Where was this particular hide?—Among some others on the fourth top layer. It would be impossible' for you to say that the skin now in court was the skin you saw in its wet condition at the tannery?— That is so. Mr Thomas: Did M’Donald’s nomination have his address on it?—Yes. Where nominations are signed by two persons they would both get receipts?— Yes. Mr Donnelly: Had you any doubt that the horse which raced as All Smoke was boiled down ? —No. Mr Hanlon: It was a wrong coloured horsi? which ran. Mr Donnelly:’Oh, that was a mistake. Mr Hanlon: And none of the stewards saw it. John Wilson, manager of the Otahuhu Gas Works, and steward of the Otahuhu Club said that before the November meeting of the club he saw a black horso about 15.2 or 15.3 hands at the Criterion Hotel. Williamson was in charge of the horse and Capes was with him. Witness noticed a peculiarity: That there were brown hairs about the muzzle. On the days of the meeting he saw the horse (which was called All Smoke) go out of the birdcage for the Introductory Handicap. It was driven by Bennett. The hors® went out the second day, but it broke down. Williamson got off and led it. On November 26 witness saw Williamson and Capes in the yard of the hotel, when they were preparing to. go to the station. He did not see the horse then or had he seen it since. The horse which Chief-detective Gibson showed witness at the time of the lower court proceedings was not the one that raced. Witness was the birdcage steward at the meeting. He carried on the first day and part of the second day till the president asked him to take the duties of track steward. He was not removed from his pqsition because he had been drinking. The description of the horse All Smoke in the racebook was incorrect. Air Hanlon: It is quite incorrect to say that you were drunk? —Yes. you been having a few drinks?— Not at the time of the first race. You were talking to another man at lunch time?—Yes. I thought so. That is why yon answered the question so glibly. Did he tell you about this having been discussed? —He just passed the remark: “You did not notice that there was a black horse running in the race in lieu of the bay gelding that was mentioned in the book.” rou could not have been looking after your business very well?—Knowing the horse I never bothered. You noticed brown coming through the black. To whom did you report it? — W hat do you mean? You would at once become suspicious?— I did not know that the horse was “rungin. What is your duty?—To see that they went out to time, and that the colours and saddle-cloths were rght. Did you not examine the. horses?—There is not much time to look at them. After they are away the next lot has to be brought in. They seem to be in a great bustle in Auckland. At ony other place there doesn’t seem to be that bustle. —You have to move. On the second day did you notice that there was some mistake in the book?—No. B town eyes in a black horse—a funny looking thing wasn’t it? —Yes. Did it strike, you to draw the attention of anybody in Otahuhu that a funny-look-ing horse was going out to race ?—No. You did notice that lie was very tender? -Yes. It is dangerous to allow a tender horse to go out and race amongst others?—Not in ail cases. Yes, it depends on the amount pf tenderness: but isn’t it a matter to report to (he stipendiary steward? —Which I did not. do. You don’t seem to have done anything? —'They were there. What did he do in the race? —Nothing. He broke down. Belore he broke down what did he do? — He seemed to be. going fairly well. In the lower court you said: “Up t,o the time he broke down he did not seem to make any showing at all.” Which did he do? I should take it that he was going fairly well. Was he going fairly well or not? You don’t know. That is about the truth. Did you make any inquiries after the race ?—Yes.

You went to see a chemist if any stuff w_s got for dyeing purposes. What did he say?—During the time the horse was there he noticed that he had 6old a lot of dye. Dutch drops?—No, some acid. He said it was a black dye. Did you report that to anybody 7 ? —l spoke to some of my friends. A tie Crown Prosecutor (in re-examination): A good deal seems to have happened to you since the lower court. Has anybody seen J'ou since? —No. We have just been talking it over. John Brownlee, an employee at Austin s boiling-down works at Panmure, gave evidence as to receiving a black horse on November 26. There were two men, one of whom he identified as Williamson, but he did not know the other. The horse was lame, and was covered with a rug. Williamson said he had a horse to be destroyed. f l he horse was running out in a paddock for several days. One morning, when going to work, witness noticed that the horse had been rolling on the wet grass. This was the first time he noticed anything peculiar. It was then he discovered that it was a hay underneath. In the ordinary way it was a shiny black, but when ruffled bay hairs showed distinctly. Other evidence having been given as to the hair on the hide being dyed, the court adjourned till to-morrow, the jury being locked up for the night. May 14. In the alleged ringing-in case the analyst swore that the skin had been dyed. Detective Knight, of Auckland, said that the horse outside (he court was not the horse that raced at Otahuhu, as he had backed it. D. Bennett said he had driven for Capes before he drove Willie Lincoln at the Cup meeting, and he won the last race of the day for Percy Capes, the accused’s brother. One day during the November meeting he was in Capes’s shop, and Charlie Capes offered him the drive at Auckland for an unnamed horse he said he had been keeping. His fare was paid to Auckland, where he was told that the horse was All Smoke. He noticed it described in the book as a bay, but Capes said it was a misprint. In the race the horse broke a good deal, and got second. It seemed to have a fair speed. He remarked that it was a hard puller. It went lame in the foreleg. At Dunedin he saw Capes, who said that All Smoke was sore, and had been left in Kelsey’s paddock. Later Tucker said the horse had been destroyed. Cross-examined, witness said he swore falsely in the lower court because he was bustled, and said what Capes dictated. Frederick Jones said that All Smoke was not a harness horse. Are had put him into harness but he kicked the cart to pieces, bolted, jumped a fence, and cut his foreleg, a permanent scar being left. The horse in the courtyard was the genuine All Smoke. William Kelsey, horse trainer, Auckland, said that he gave Williamson permission to put a horse in his paddock about three weeks after the Otahuhu meeting. Capes removed the horse, which was a black one, and was not lame. James M'Donald, upholsterer, Christchurch, said that Wild Moa was his property, and had been nominated at Otahuhu without his knowledge. He had received Ali Smoke from Tucker. He had been requested to say that he trained the horse during October and November, and that he received it again in December. The story was to be told to the Trotting Association to save Tucker’s license. He had had All Smoke only an hour when the detectives came for him. In September Tucker said Capes had a horse that he wanted to race in Auckland in October, and he wanted a horse to couple with it. Witness agreed to lend Wild Moa, but Capes did not come for the horse, and witness questioned him about it. Capes said he did not want the horse, and everything was finished. They then entered the horse without his authority for the Otahuhu meeting. The evidence of the police and trotting officials having been heard, the case for the Crown was closed. No witnesses were called for the defence. Mr Hanlon, in addressing the jury, said that the first hurdle the Crown had to get over was the fact that some unknown horse had been substituted for All Smoke. If it were true that some horse were substituted for All Smoke where were the stipendiary stewards? What were they doing that they did not see brown rings and a brown muzzle? What did these two officials say about it? Did they see this horse? ITad they been approached? Those men, if they 'had known their business, would have instituted an inquiry on the spot, yet they allowed a bay gelding to go out and take part in the race when the racebook described it as a black horse. The jurors had a right to say that they would demand from the Crown some direct testimony from the stipendiary stewards that a wong horse had been introduced. A glance at the book and horse would have bowled out the men, yet two stipendiary stewards and 12 or 15 honorary stewards failed to notice that remarkable, coincidence. However, the stipendiary stewards were kept afar off. and the jury had the evidence of Wilson, “the birdcage artist.” Instead there was a witness who had confessed that he did not know unite what- happened in the race. In addition to this,, a man had noticed some strange and had failed to report them. Otherwise he might not have seen anything, hut he bad given evidence, from what he had beard afterwards. The observant witness. Pees, had not mentioned one word about Op brown muzzle. and the brownringed eyes. Detective Knight was a most amusin' 7 \v it ness. TTe had noticed the peculiarities of All Smoke. Fie bad backed it. He noticed that it came in lame. Ho saw it next day again, and vet be did not report Us poediarities to ant-nodv in authority. The Grown bad failed to get Ihe correct witnesses—the stipendiary stewards —and it had depended o'i witnesses Pees. Wilson, and Knight, The witnesses had been dragged from all marts of Ihe- dominion to prove that the horse in the courtyard was AH Smoke The defence admitted that it was All Smoke. The Grown Prosecutor had produced an unusually large number of lyin<r witnesses. A witness of that sort would sav that as men were in the do"V ; t was rasv to nut things on to them. Gould any jurv convict on the testimony of such a nac-k of witnesses as had been produced bv tile Crown? The Crown Prosecutor had tried to win his case by his eloquence, and it was no wonder with such a tribe of witnesses. The undisputed facts of the case were that two horses were nominated. Wild Moa and All Smoke. Bluewood and All

Smoke went up to Auckland. This was the theory of counsel. At Otahuhu the horse in the box was All Smoke. That horse raced and broke down, and was put in Kelsey’s paddock, and three weeks later it was taken back to Christchurch, and found by Detective Gibson in M’Donald’s paddock. One thing for the jury to consider was that the Crown said that an unknown horse ran as All Smoke, but it was required to be proved. Where did the men get All Smoke? Why were not the stipendiary stewards brought along—the men who know all the horses in the country ? Mr Thomas said that the only clear facts in regard to Tucker were —(1) lie was the owner of All Smoke; (2) All Smoke was entered at Otahuhu; (3) the management of the horse had been left to Capes and Williamson; (4) All Smoke went to Auckland. was placed in Kelsey’s paddock, and returned to M’Donald’s paddock. If “ring-ing-in” did occur did Tucker have anything to do with it? Directly the evidence was held up the case against Tucker was seen to be inherently weak. Owing to Mr Thomas’s t hroat going amiss he was unable to proceed with his address, and the court adjourned till the morning. May 15. The All Smoke case was concluded before Mr Justice Adams at the Supreme Court to-day. In the course of his summing up his Honor said that the main question was whether a horse was substituted for All Smoke. There were certain facts which were undisputed. There was no doubt that Ail Smoke was nominated and accepted for both races. It was also clear that some horse did in fact, run in two races, that the same horse ran in both races, and that it was a black horse; and further that the horse broke down on the second day. The only question was: Was the horse that ran All Smoke? A great deal had been said about a mistake in the racebook. It was a careless thing, no doubt, but it had been put more strongly than that. It had been urged that it was the duty of Stipendiary Stewards to explain, but the court was not trying the stewards for carelessness. There had been questions whether a search had been made at the boiling down works for the shoes of the horse that was destroyed. If shoes had beon produced they would have been immediately ruled out because it would have been impossible to identify them as the shoes of the actual horse. That issue could be laid entirely aside. Then there was the question of the hide, and again he reminded them that they had not to decide whether it was the skin of Ali Smoke, but whether All Smoke ran. There was the hide of some horse, and it spoke for itself. The jury were entitled to look at the hide and exercise their knowledge and commonsense. Was the hide a natural one or was it one that had been sophisticated by dyeing? The only importance of it was that it showed that if a horse* had been substituted it was a black horse. It came back to the question whether All Smoke van. After reviewing the evidence by which the hide was identified his Honor dealt with the testimony concerning the horse which ran in the races. There was the evidence of Wilson, but it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of Wilson entirely to the same extent as applied to Bennett, but the main evidence was not that of these two men. There was other evidence. There was Pees, who had not been cross-examined by counsel for Williamson and Capes, and he had been asked only one question by counsel for Tucker. Pees had said definitely that the horse All Smoke was not the one that ran in Auckland. Explaining the definition of conspiracy his Honor said that it occurred when two or more persons agreed by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means to defraud the public or person or persons which included a corporate body such as the Otahuhu Trotting Club. With reference to the evidence Capes and Williamson appeared to be connected with the whole of the transaction. The nomination of a horse belonging to Tucker was in the hand-writing of Capes. That was the first step. Then they were together at Otahuhu, and two men arrived at the boiling down works with a horse. If the jury came to the conclusion that these men were connected in consort and that a herse was substituted for All Smoke then they would be guilty of conspiracy. “Where the case for the Crown depends on the evidence of those witnesses who made contradictory statements, then I need scarcely inform you that you should not find anybody guilty if your conclusion is based on that evidence,” said his Honor. The evidence against Tucker was weaker than that in respect of the other two and they must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt after coming to a conclusion of guilt, if they did so, that Tucker was a party to the scheme. Then his guilt was as clear as that of the other tv o. The jury retired at 11.50 a.m and returned at 4 p.m. with a verdict of guilty against all threo on the charge of conspiracy, but Capes and Williamson only weft found guilty on the charge of false pretences. Sentence was deferred till Wednesday. THE EULIUS CASE. CHRISTCHURCH, May 15. V, hen the jury had retired in the All Smoke case to-day a new jury was empanand the hearing was commenced of the charges of alleged conspiracy and false pretences against Walter Medley Hulston Charles Hopwood Capes. William Percy Capes, and Alfred Tucker for allegedly vinginsr-ln Willie Lincoln as Eulius aC Gisborne in July last:. The same counsel were engaged as in the previous case. Mr A. T. Donnelly, in opening, said that the facts were simple. Tucker on July 6 owned Eulius. He handed over to Hulston two-thirds of his interest in the horse, re tain in g one-third for himself. The two men were thus in partnership. The actual handwriting on the transfer form was that of C. W. Capes. Willie Lincoln bad run in the New Zealand Trotting Cup. lie was one of the most distinctive and best horses in the country. Messrs lies and Young owned Willie Lincoln. On July 3 they leased the horse to W. P. Capes, who controlled the movements of the horse. Eulius did not seem to have been in the hands of any trainer. Britten, a cab owner, had him. Eulius was not an aristocrat, as he earned his feed part of the time in the shafts of a cab. He was not: in great trim. Willie Lincoln, on the other hand, was training all the time and wag fit. Eulius was taken away to Gisborne. Ihe Poverty Bay Club held a two-day meeting. Eulius was supposed to have got- there in time for the second day. The question for the juiy was, Did Eulius run at Gisborne? If

it did not, which horse took its place? A horse called Eulius won the big race, and he was a hot favourite, though Eulius was not a very good stayer. Hulston and Charles Capes were in Gisborne. The stake-money was sent to Hulston, who signed a receipt. That stake was paid into the banking account of a produce company controlled by Charles Capes. Subsequently the horse Eulius was sold at auction on account of Tucker, yet the purchase money went to Capes. What was done regarding the horses centred about the premises of the Christchurch Produce Company ? There was no comparison whatever between the merits of both horses, -radius did a mile and a-half in 3min 33sec, and Willie Lincoln did a mile in 2min lOsec. Application was made to Williamson’s employer to allow Williamson to go north. xhen Hulston and Capes went to Gisborne. Before the day of the race a man named Fisken saw a horse taken on the course. The horse did 2min 16sec and a bit to the mile, and that was on a track ssec slower than that at Addington. Evidence would led to show that the horse which had been at Gisborne was Willie Lincoln. It had been identified by several witnesses. Willie Lincoln had a distinctive gait and was fairly easily identified. Bennett was the driver of the horse. Bennett would tell the court that the horse he drove in Gisborne was W’illie Lincoln. He had amended his evidence in the lower court, and it was clear that he had not told the truth in the other court. After the race a photographer had snapped the winner of the race with Hulston hanging on to the head of the horse. A number of witnesses would say that the photograph was one of Willie Lincoln and not Eulius. The case against W. P. Capes and Tucker was weaker than that against the others, but all four were involved in the transactions. Tucker Was an employee in Capes’s shop. It was incredible that any one ol the men couid not. have known what was going on. _ Evidence in support of the Crown’s case was then led. Robert C. Fisken, of Gisborne, said he was vice-president of the Poverty Bay Trotting Club, and he saw Eulius win at Gisborne. He won fairly comfortably by six or seven lengths. Witness saw Eulius tried on the Gisborne track the night before the race. The track was a rough one, and much slower than Addington. The track was about five seconds slower to the mile. In the trial Eulius paced a mile in 2min 16 2-ssec —equal to about 2min llseo at Addington. Witness was in Dunedin in February when he saw it horse go on to the track. He recognised the horse as the Gisborne winner. At New Brighton Chief Detective Gibson and a Trotting Association official showed witness a horse, which when put in harness and sent along made witness certain that it was not the horse that raced at Gisborne. That was Eulius. Then in Clarke’s stable witness identified a photograph of the Gisborne winner. The Gisborne winner had been clipped, and his coat was a mousy colour. The horse at Dunedin was examined by witness, who found that if clipped his coat would show the same characteristic. To Mr Hanlon: Chief Detective Gibson came to him on the track. Witness was sure that the horse he saw on the Forbury track was the Gisborne winner. Witness had a horse named Medway in the Gisborne race. He supported his own horse and Eulius. He backed Eulius on account of the trial on the previous evening on the training track. He viewed the trial from a paddock, and could have been seen by the horse’s connections if they wished to see him. They did not get many 2.10 horses at Gisborne. Medway could not beat Eulius, but the latter might have fallen down. “You never know your luck in racing,” said witness. Mr Hanlon-. I am learning something about trotting. Witness: You are always prepared for an accident. Mr Hanlon : That is why you put a little on your own horse as an insurance? Yes. Mr Hanlon: Were you in a Calcutta sweep on the night before the, races? Mr Donnelly objected to this question, and counsel withdrew it. Mr Hanlon: Did you have a horse called Peterwah running on the first day? Was there an inquiry?—No. I have never been before the stewards in my life. Mr Hanlon: Did the stipendiary stewards speak to you?—Mr Mabee came to me and asked if Peterwah could not have finished any better. Mr Hanlon: That suggests that the hoise was not driven out? —I do not think so. Mr Hanlon: You say the winner of the big race won by six lengths. If the press reported it as two lengths would that be wrong? —If the press said that it was wrong. Mr Hanlon: Was the horse whipped?— Yes, on the shafts. Mr Hanlon (to his Honor): That is a trick. To Witness: You saw that.—Ye6, in the straight. Mr Hanlon: How far ahead was Eulius then in front of his field? —I do not know it' he was in front. Mr Hanlon: What were they using the whip for? —Ask yourself. Mr Hanlon: But I was not there.—The whip may be used as a blind Mr Hanlon: Was the horse in front then? -—I do not know where he was. The straight was over a furlong in length. Counsel suggested that the horse must, nave gone on and got a good lead, and witness agreed. Witness said he knew Willie Lincoln as W illie Lincoln first at Dunedin, hut to the best of his belief it was the Gisborne winner. He knew nothing about the photograph. Witness said he would say that the Gisborne winner was Willie Lincoln. After the two-mile race witness saw Hulston and asked him not to scratch Eulius in the mile race, saying he would drive or get his man to drive him so as to help the totalisator. He had a hoise of his own in the race, and his man could have driven Eulius. Witness was not prepared to scratch his own horse. He wanted all the horses possible to race, and be asked the Eulius people not to scratch their horse. Mr Hanlon : Did you do that as a steward or as an owner? —As a steward. I wanted to keep the field lip. Mr Hanlon : Did you offer to drive Eulius? —No. I did not. Mr Hanlon: Did you offer your man if the horse’s connections would refrain from scratching the horse? —Yes. Mr Hanlon : Did you tell one of the men with the horse that you wanted it to start so as to help the totalisator?—lt was to help tile club. Counsel pressed for an answer whether it was not to help witness too, but his

Honor said (here was a difference in the statements. Mr Hanlon : Did vou say to s-omecocjy it was to help the club?—-I wanted to get more horses in the race. It would b« better for the club. Mr Hanlon: Explain that to the jury.— •there would be more horses to bet on. Mr Hanlcn: Then, corning back, it was to help the club by means of the totalisator investments from which the club gets its money. I know something about theso things. In view of the ruestions put try counsel Mr Donnelly said that the witness should assure the jury that it was not his trade or profession to drive trotting horses Counsel: I object. Mr Donnelly . .By innuendo it lias put to the jury that this man is dishonest on account of an inquiry into the running of Peterwah. The questions have been put with nothing in support of them His Honor agreed. To Mr Donnelly the witness said lie was a farmer and sheep breeder and gave a cup last year. He founded the club in Gisc-orne. The horse Peterwah was imported from America by witness, and at the time of the Ciisfcorne races Peterwah, who had cost £'SO3, was only a two-year-old. Ihe horse ran green, as it was his first race. Witness backed him. The only question asked was whether he had driven the horse out. and witness assured the stipendiary steward that he did. No one else had questioned witness about Peterwah. May 16. The Eulius case was concluded at the Supreme Court to-day before Mr Justice Adams. Counsel addressed the iury and his Honor summed im, the addresses of each being cn similar lines to those in the All Smoke case. The jury letired at 1.25 p.m., and returned at 4.10 p.m. with a verdict of guilty on all counts aga-'nst the accused —Walter Medley Hulston, William Williamson, William Percy Capes, and Charles I i op wood Capes. Sentence was deferred till Wednesday. The third charge against the above accused and James Goldiny in connection with what is known as the ‘ Look Out case” was withdrawn. Mr A. T. Donnelly 7 (Crown Prosecutor) said that all the accused in the case, with the exception of Golding, had been found guilty in either the All Smoke or the Eulius case, and C. H. Capes had been convicted in both cases. Only Golding had been left, and on the evidence in the Look Out case the Crown could not hope for a conviction against- Golding. Golding was a stupid and innocent tool, and it seemed useless to incur further expense in order to go through another lengthy hearing. He proposed to enter a stay of proceedings. His Honor agreed that it would have been difficult to find Golding guilty. THE KING.ST) ALE CASE. John Richards and Waller Leonard James Cameron came before his Honor Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court on Saturday morning for sentence on the following charges, on which they were convicted on May 7 : 1. On or about October 1, 1923, at Dunedin. they did conspire, the one with the other, by fraudulent means, to defraud the public, and in particular William Francis James and the Gore Racing Club. 2. On the same date they 7 did conspire, one with the other, to commit a crime punishable by imprisonment with hard labour for three years—namely 7, the crime of obtaining moneys from t'ne Gore Racing Club with intent to defraud by a false pretence by representing the trotting horse named ‘‘The Dingo” to be a trotting horse named “Kingsdale.” Mr .1. B. Callan appeared for Richards, and Mr J. S. Sinclair represented Cameron. Mr Callan stated that in the unavoidable absence of Mr Hanlon he had been asked to appear for Richards. This accused was 40 years of age. and was a married man with one child between two and three years old. He had spent a great many y 7 ears in this district, and for nearly 20 years he was employed by Messrs Todd Bros., ultimately as auctioneer. He left the service of that firm some four years ago. Mr Todd had handed to him (Mr Callan) a statement regarding Richards's character while he was employed by 7 ihe firm. Mr Todd was in court, and would answer any questions put to him. He stated that Richards left his service to start business on bis own account. He also stated that Richards was reliable and trustworthy, and had the entire confidence of the firm in respect to the handling of money 7 . Mr Todd knew personally that from the time he vva-s a lad Richards had been of great financial assistance to his mother, who was not in good circumstances and had assisted greatly in bringing up the younger members of the family. A younger brother became seriously ill some six or seven years ago, and the accused had spent hundreds of pounds in trying to effect a cure. Learned counsel said he quite realised that nothing one could say as to the business integrity of the accused over a long period of years and the faithful discharge of his duties to the family could get over the fact that he had been convicted of a serious fraud. He also realised that it was very desirable that trotting should be kept clean, but he felt entitled to say that it- was an important circumstance that the fraud took place in connection with trotting and not in connection with accused’s business. The plain fact was that it took place in con neetion with a pursuit in which people found it difficult to draw the line between what was tolerated by public opinion and what was not. No one considered it improper to conceal performances of horses to the extent of deceiving the public. His Honor said it was very unfortunate for rating if a man was honest in business and dishonest in sport. Mr Callan said that no doubt things which wore not criminal were done in whicn there was an atmosphere of concealment. It was a matter of some palliation to the accused (hat it was in connection with sport that he faced the court Mr Sinclair said that Cameron was only 25 years of age, and was married quite recently. He had a young wife, who was in very indifferent health. He- had been a resident of New Zealand all his life, so that the police should have no difficulty in checking his record, and he (learned counsel) understood that the police gave the accused an excellent character except for this one lapse. But for this he could confidently submit that the accused had an excellent character. It appeared to lie obvious from the evidence that the master mind in this conspiracy was riot Cameron,

and that he was more the machinery than the director. Learned counsel asked his Honor to take that into consideration. Mr Sinclair went on to state that he had a testimonial from one of the accused’s old employers—Messrs .Mooney and Co. The manager of that company (Mr Stewart) stated that Cameron was with the firm for three years, holding various positions of trust. In 1922 he was employed as country representative, and in the capacity of skin buyer he was entrusted with large sums of money. At all times his books were in perfect order, and he was a man of the highest integrity. Mr Stewart stated that the firm would be pleased to give the accused a position on its staff again at any time. Learned counsel submitted that there was a strong recommendation in favour of the accused. This was the only thing known against Cameron, and the speaker appealed to his Honor to extend to him tbo advantages offered by the First Offenders' Probation Act, 1920. His Honor : I could not grant probation iis a case of this sort. Mr Sinclair: Very well, sir. I can only ask in view of the circumstances and in view of the fact that the accused is a young man with such a clean record in the past that you will specially extend to him the greatest possible leniency. His Honor said the aroused had been found guilty of conspiring- to defraud the racing club and the general public. The facts showed that the conspiracy was of considerable deliberation, care, and thought. ITe was quite prepared to accept the police statement that the master mind was the employer (Richards), and that Cameron was more or less a tool in his hands. At the same time one could not lose sight of the fact that Cameron must have been thoroughly conversant with what was going on and must have taken part in the consideration of the scheme from the first. A fraud like that was of a deliberate nature, and must be marked by punishment. A most disordering feature was that it was obvious that quite a number of people possessed information which, if they had communicated it to the police, would have assisted in sheeting home this crime, but they had remained silent, and in some cases had wilfully tried to put the police off thi track. Such persons could not all have been participators in the swindle. It seemed that a certain section of the racegoing fraternity was prepared to look with complacency on this sort of thing. He accepted the statements of counsel and the testimonials by the employers of the accused that in their ordinary business they were men of probity and honour. There must be some special cause, to make men of that nature take part in a swindle of this sort. He proposed to distinguish between the two men, inasmuch as he thought Richards was the master mind. Richards would be sentenced to immisonment for 12 calendar months and Cameron for six calendar months.