Untitled

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume III, Issue 146, 11 May 1893, Page 4

An interesting if somewhat protracted racing case was decided at Greymouth on the West Coast of the South Island last week. It took the form of ah action in the District Court brought by Timothy Daly, owner of the horse Liberator, against the Greymouth Jockey Club (a Metropolitan Club) to recover the sum of £ 100, being the value of the stake alleged to have been wrongfully withheld from plaintiff, whose horse won the .Midland Stakes at the Greymouth Jockey Club’s Autumn Meeting. In his opening address the counsel for the plaintiff said; that < the race was run in the dark. ; Lit eratpr’s owner expected him to win <the.Sk Patrick’s Handicap on the first, day, and backed him accordingly,, but the horse had not run on,the bourse, before, and for some reason he did not run <as he ought. Next day he came out in the Midland Stakes and won easily. . It was maintained on behalf of the plaintiff that-John Giesking, one of the stewards of the Club, owned Harkaway (who finished second Ito Liberator), and . other of the stewards were also interested in the horse and had backed him on. the totalisator and consequently were directly \ interested in»declaring him the winner. It, was a matter for argument whether < the, stewards had power to declare Harkaway the. wiuuer without disqualifying Liberator. : The only decision recorded by. the.stewards as pinned up outside the, stewards’ room was, “ Protest against Liberator hs4 been entertained, and the stakes: axe given to Harkaway.—F. W. Lahmpn,; secretary.” ’ This, counsel maintained,;was in marked discrepancy from the; pleadings on behalf of the defendant, which said that. Liberator was disqualified./ This was evidently an after-thought of the stewards with the evident intention of making their, .action legal. An ioffer had been made ;; to; the Club to submit the final decision of . .the case to the Canterbury Jockey ; Clufe in order to keep, out Qf court. but they had refused. Among a large; number,of witnesses called was .the secretary ,qf the Greymouth Jockey Club, hfr F. Lahman,.. whose evidence threw ifk nice aide light on the manner. in whiQh.meetings Qf some Raping Clubs’ Stewards are Conducted. Mr Lahman produped Mr Giesking’s protest, which .contained aom.e verbal alterations in the. handwriting of Mr Hannan,: chairman, of the jste.wards. Mr Lahman .also tendered the; rough minutes of the, evidence, taken hearings of the ( protest, and, wept on to Ba y •r ? t ••• I The motion proposed by <Mr Hannan, and seconded by Mr Blair; , that Liberator be disqualified, was written as it appears in Hie minutes. Hannan stated that Liberator had not been run out the night before as he the race, and said that the horse should be’* disqualified. • Received a letter from Messrs.1 Guinness d&d J£itch.ingham on behalf of the owner of the horse ’demanding the- stakes. Broiightthe letter before the club, when it was resolved at a medtiug of the . . '.■ft/

taken against tije club. - This/was before the stakes Stewards of this club had disqualified horses before. It is usual only whena protest •is entertained to post up the fact that the protest is entertained. All the stewards were aware of how the horses came mA : The money was paid' to* John Giesking, owner of Harkaway, which has already run in his name in Grfcymouth. No one else has an .interest in as far as he(witness)knew. At the committee meeting Mr Hanhan objected to take thedhalras her had “an interest ih Harkaway, but ultimately took the chair.- * * * Some of the stewards; said to what extent they were interested. Hannan, said he had tickets on . Harkaway, and. Napcarrow and Blair on Liberator. Matheson, hi; thought, hid an interest on both horses. All the Speakers spoke (quite freely as to the interests they held, m.’ ~r ; : '

■ Arid these be stewards of a Metropolitan Cltib! Truly racing on the West Coast has fallen off a lot in its status since the days When Mr Win . Walters used to journey down there with Yatterina and other good 'ones, and when Robert Ray Arid other veterans used to meet him with the best of their cattle. After a couple of the stewards had been called, ■ one of whom, Mr Nancarrow, deposed that hri had a ticket in the totalisator on Liberator.the case was adj our hed till next day.

i'; ■ st ■/•' <t - ON jhe second day pf the hearing the first witness , called was: Charles James, the manager of, the totalisator, and on. plaintie’s ■ cpunsel asking him how many ticketshad been issued to; Mr Hannan counsel for .the defendants obj ected, and legal argument : ensued, , His Honor, Judge Bob inson eventually, deciding thint.the witness, need not answer the question. After a. lengthy hearing, extending on,the whole over five days, the case .concluded .with a verdict for the defendants, which verdict only goes ,to further prove how stewards of racing qlubs are hedged about with certpin righty and privileges which cannot ,be brciken in .nppn. At the tiipe of writing we. are not in possession,of the full, text of Judge Robinson’s judgment, and therefore we cannot say, on what grounds he decided against Liberator’s owner, who, aqppording to the,evidence, had it seemed to us, a pretty clear case. When it coines. to, hand we doubt not the judgment will be found.a. very interesting one, and t W‘ shall take an early opportunity of laying it before our. readers.