FARTHING DAMAGES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 67, 24 July 1913, Page 5

FARTHING DAMAGES.

WOOTTON v. SIEVE ER CASE.

A SMELLFUL STABLE,

[By Electric Telegraph—Copyright] [United Press Association.] London, July 23. A London cablegram states that the verdict in the Wootton-Sievier case

went to the plaintiff with damages of one farthing.

(Received 11.30 a.m.)

In the Wootton-Sievier case, Mr Marshall Hall, on behalf of the “Winning Post,” said Wootton had done everything lie could to conceal the facts. He had several banking accounts and sent large blocks of money to Australia. Jockeys could not call their souls their own. They were promised a thrashing if they didn’t do as they were told. The stable was run on commercial lines. Hence Wootton’s opportunity of perpetrating fraud on the public. Mr F. Smith, on behalf of Wootton, declared that Sievier was animated by malice. Ho poured out a volume of filthy insinuations because Wootton had refused to give him information. Sievier himself had been warned off the turf. When a member of an alleged ring gave evidence they had not even cross-examined him regarding the alleged pulling of six years ago. Sievier then made no complaints to the stewards. Instead he wrote denouncing Wootton’s detractors. Mr Justice Darling, in summing up, suggested that the increase in fouls was possibly due to riding with shorter stirrups.

The jury returned a verdict that the, words were not true in substance or fact, were not fair or honest comment, but were published without malice. Judgment was entered with costs.