Sporting Review. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1891.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume II, Issue 72, 10 December 1891, Page 5

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1891.

Some time ago we had to draw the attention of the Auckland Racing Club Committee—as the Metropolitan Club—to certain horses running in the district under their supervision with the same name, thereby ignoring Rule 64, where it distinctly states that when one or more horses of the same name are running, they must be distinguished by numerals. They Have however, never taken any notice of it, and the rule is still in abeyance in the Auckland district. If attention is not paid to it some confusion will be sure to arise. Lately our attention was called to two sires being called Flintlock, both by Musket, one covering in the Waikato, the other on the West Coast. In future years this will cause disputes in nominations, perhaps ending in some same serious complications, as a horse might be entered as sired by the wrong Flintlock, or it might even go back to the dam. We once more beg to call the attention of the A.R.C. Committee to the Rule 64 being disregarded, and hope they will take notice of it this time. In the Maiden Plate at Avondale there is a four-year-old called Captive, by Captivator —Bragela, who ran seven times last year, and whose name appears in the Turf Register. Mr. D. O’Brien has also a two-year-old named Captive, by Captivator out of Maid of Honour, that is entered in the Great Northern Foal Stakes, to be run at the A.R.C. Summer Meeting, and from all accounts he will be brought up to take part at the meeting; he is also entered in several other events to be run next year. This will give the A.R.C. Committee a fair opportunity to insist on Rule 64 being carried out. If they do so they will confer a great benefit, not only on racing men, but also breeders, and it is to be hoped that all the Metropolitan Clubs will insist on it being carried out. Of late years there has been great difficulty with breeders to get the correct pedigrees of some mares, owing to the similarity of names of the sires.

We should like to ask what is the use of the Metropolitan Clubs holding conferences and making rules if they do not insist on their being adhered to. The A.R.C. Committee are very strict as regards Rule 20, appertaining to unregistered courses, but Rules 56 and 66, relating to nominations—that horses must be entered in the real or registered name of the owner— are completely ignored by many of the Clubs. There is not a meeting around Auckland that horses are not continually entered as the property of a person who has not even a share in them or some name that has not been registered. It will be fresh in the memory of racing men that Mr. De Mestre lodged an objection 1 to Malvolio, the winner of the Melbourne Cup, on the ground that he was not the property of Mr. Redfearn, who nominated him. The protest was dismissed. If such had not been the case, what complications would have arisen. The Auckland and other Clubs are very strict with some of the rules, why should they not be with the important one regarding nominations. They have the power to insist on knowing the owner of a horse before they accept his entry. At the recent meetings that have been held round Auckland there has been three or four flagrant cases, but no notice has been taken of them.