SPORTING NEWS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 9171, 13 June 1901, Page 4

SPORTING NEWS.

Sylvanus, whose name appears amongst the entrants for the G.H.C.'s Trial Steeplechase, is not eligible, having recently won a similar event for an amount above that of the limit mentioned m the conditions of the race. There is no mistake about Mr 6. G. Stead's luck. He has owned the biggest two-year-old winner eight times m the last nine years. His latest (Menschikoff) has won this season £2656, whicn has never been exceeded by any two-year-old m New Zealand bar Multiform, whose record is £2762. Late English mail news says that Mr Spencer Gollan, erst of Napier, made a big pile over Australian Star's win m the London Cup, a prise worth £1664 and a £100 trophy. The winner is Australianbred, and was purchased m Sydney two or three years ago. The high-jumping contest at the recent Brisbane Exhibition was divided between Mr T. Morgan's Napoleon and Fitzgerald Bros.' Stockman, which both cleared 6ft 2in- The third prize went to Fitzgerald Bros.' Newhaven. Cardello, the colored jockey, fell during the display," but was not seriously injured^ , As sljowrng the success of paying out on, two horses, which was tried at the Tahuna Park Trotting Meeting recently for the first time, it may be mentioned that the totalisator turn-over was £321 10s more than last year, with one race less on the programme. The club intends to make paying out m this manner permanent. A challenge football match was played between the Fifth New Zealand Contingent and the Imperial Light Horse on the veldt. A well-fought game ensued, and at the close the New Zealanders came out victorious by nineteen points to nil. Sturgeon, who gave Otto Crib such a bad time m the two engagements that they had at the Golden Gate Athletic Club, Sydney, although defeated on each occasion, recently accounted for Jack Conlon, Sydney's football pugilist. He is now matched to. fight Parker, a Yankee fighter; , and Herbert McKee, lately returned from South Africa. A New Zealand printer lately had' a golden afternoon. Possessing an unlucky bundle of thirteen notes he put the baker's dozen on a horse with a bookmaker at 10 to 1 against, stipulating that the winnings, if .any, were to be placed on another later on. The horse won, and the whole of the £130 was put on horse number 2, with the result that it won, paying a dividend of £6 3s, thus making the total winnings £786 10s. The same man had previously forwarded £1 to be put on a horse at another meeting held on the same day, and it returned £76 odd. A case of interest to the racing' public came before the Chief Justice at Wellington a few days ago. It was that of Herbert Peters, appellant, v. Henry Telford, respondent, an appeal from the decision of Dr McArthur, S.M., at Wellington. In the original case, Telford, who is a jockey, claimed from Peters, a trainer, £16 for riding certain horses at Marton on sih and 6th September, . 1900. Both parties believed that Telford's license as a jockey, which had expired on the 31st August-, had been renewed, but as a matter of fact his application for a renewal had been held over, and was subsequently refused on the ground that he was the owner "of a racehorse. Telford, however, claimed his riding fee, and .the Magistrate gave judgment m his favor. "Against this the defendant Peters appealed, and a case -was stated by the Magistrate, the question being whether the respondent was entitled to recover the~ amount claimed, . notwithstanding that he was not at the date of the .meeting duty: licensed as a jockey. Mr Hindmarch, for the appellant, urged that the very foundation of the contract was that the jockey should be licensed, and if, being unlicensed, he had won, the appellant's horse could not have been awarded the race. Mr Dalziell, for the respondent, contended that the contract- had been partly performed, and appellant's remedy was by a cross-action. There was nothing m the rules to show that the owner would not have got the stakes had the horse won when* ridden by an unlicensed jockey. His Honor reserved'his decision. : A point which is now exercising the English cricket mind, as the bowling boycott has been settled, is the long-vexed question of -"Lb.w." A large meeting of the M.C.C. has been convened, at which it will be proposed that if a batsman with his kg m a fine between the two wickets stop a ball that would have hit his wicket, he shall be out whether or not the ball were actually "pitched" m a direct line' between the wickets. .This change is strongly favored by many leading players, who deem it "not cricket" for a batsman tc defend his wicket with his padded legs against a good ball breaking from off or leg side. As it is, the erstwhile effective bpwlen> whose deliveries broke from the leg side—including all the famous men of the past generation — are "out of court" nowadays because batsmen deliberately. guard their wickets with their padded legs. On the other hand, some players • urge the strange point that unless a batsman be allowed to defend hflTwicket with his legs from a ball breaking from the off, he wOl be unable to make some of his finest strokes !