THE CHARGE OF NOBBLING BEND OR.

Observer, Volume 2, Issue 50, 3 September 1881, Page 604

THE CHARGE OF NOBBLING BEND OR.

On June 28, after a trial whicli had occupied the attention of Mr Justice Field and of a special jury for five days, a verdict for tlie plaintiff, accompanied by heavy damages, was given in tlie case of " Barrow v Smith." Tlie plaintiff is a veterinary surgeon, aged between thirty and thirty-five years, who resides at Marlborough, in Wiltshire, and is nephew to the well-known veterinary surgeon of the samo name who, for more than a generation, has practiced his profession with the highest credit at Newmarket, " the metropolis of horseracing." He brought this action against the printer and publisher of the Morning Post in consequence of certain allegations contained in the letter of " Pavo," the sporting correspondent of our contemporary, which letter appeared on May 31, 1880, five days after tho Derby had been won by the Duke of Westminster ' bay colt, Bend Or. In tliis letter " Pavo," having hazarded the assertion that "if ever the winner of the Derby was a ' nobbled ' horse Bend Or was one,' proceeded to state that ten days before the Derby a dozen steel or tonic balls had been ordered by Robert Peck, the trainer of Bend Or, from Mr Barrow, " to finish the horse's preparation with." These balls " were delivered by the veterinary of the stable to the head lad, who gave the horse the firston Monday night of the week proceeding the race." The ball thus thus administered had, according to "Pavo," a soporific effect " upon the horse, and when Robert Peck entered Bend Or's box upon the following morning a smell of turpentine was distinctly perceived by the trainer. Mr Barrow, being present, was questioned by Mr Robert Peck as to the nature of tho balls supplied by him ; and the remaining balls contained in one of the parcels delivered to the liead lad were broken open, when it was discovered that two of them were diuretic instead of tonic. Mr Barrow insisted that these two balls had not been supplied by him, but — we quote again from " Pavo " — " appeared quite unable to account for such an inexcusable blunder, attributing it at first to somebody having changedthe balls to spite him." "Bend Or, luckily," so the letter continues, " only had one of tho 'wrong 'uns,' or he would have been a ' gone coon ' so far as the Derby is concerned." Then follows the sentence which gave occasion to the present action. "It is not a little remarkable," adds " Pavo " " that upon the Wednesday night preceding the Derby all sorts of prices were laid at Manchester against the favourite, to the astonishment of everybody con-

nected with him." Mr Charles Russell, the senior counsel for the plaintiff, alleged in his closing speech that the laying at Manchester of such prices against Bend Or as " Pavo " had spoken of was " pure nction ;" but, be this the case or not, a grave insinuation against Mr Barrow seemed to be implied by the words which we have quoted. The defendant had recourse to a defence which seems open to the charge of inconsistency. He pleaded that " if the words complained of were defamatory, they were published without actual malice or gross negligence ; that he had inserted in the journal in the which thoy appeared a full apology ; and that he had paid 40s into the court, wliieh was enough to satisfy the plaintiff's claim." The jury, however, decided that the so-called apology, emanating, not from the editor of the Morning APost, but from the offending correspondent, was wholly insufficient to indomnify Mr Barrow for tlie insinuations levelled at him, and for his dismissal from employment at the stables of Robert Peck and of Alexander Taylor, and awarded him damages amounting to £1750.