Sporting Review. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1893.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume IV, Issue 167, 5 October 1893, Page 4

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1893.

The dispute between Mr D. O’Brien and Major George in connection with the First Challenge Stakes is exercising sporting people on the other side. Commenting upon the affair as it stands at present, and more particularly on the action of the Canterbury Jockey Club in placing Mr O’Brien on the forfeit list, the Australasian of September 23rd writes: —

How Mr O’Brien came to be placed upon the forfeit list was curious, not to say questionable. Two horses of his breeding were entered in his name for the First Challenge Stakes, but before any fees for the race became due the two horses had been sold, and, in accordance with racing custom and practice, Mr O’Brien ceased to be responsible for them. It may very pertinently be asked, first, if Mr O’Brien was in the forfeit list, how was it that the stewards of the Canterbury Jockey Club permitted Loyalty to start? and secondly, how was it that Mr O’Brien, who, of course, professes ignorance of the circumstances, was not informed that he was in the forfeit list until about a month after Loyalty had won the race? These are very knotty questions. The

forfeits due for the two horses sold by Mr O’Brien were paid by Mr O’Brien under protest, but the club refused to receive the money under protest, and as remaining on the black list involved disqualification on all recognised courses, Mr O’Brien, who was contemplating a visit to Australia with horses, paid the money unconditionally. The stewards of the Canterbury Jockey Club proposed to hear the objection under circumstances which made it impossible for all the members oj the tribunal to receive proper notice to be present, but Mr O’Brien took exception to such hurried procedure, and obtained an interim injunction restraining the stewards from dealing with the protest. But the stewards have since had the injunction rescinded, and may now deal with the protest. Mr Justice Denniston, who granted the application, made it pretty plain that Mr O’Brien bad not been treated as he ought to have been by the club. His Honor’s remarks suggested that there was a doubt as to Mr O’Brien being technically a defaulter, and also that no notice probably would have been taken of Mr O’Brien’s name being in the forfeit list if be had not put in a claim for stakes to which he thought he was entitled. Major George’s protest, coming as it did after Mr O’Brien had been accounted a defaulter, is unsatisfactory in that it is said to have been instigated by the Canterbury Jockey Club for the purpose of defeating Mr O’Brien’s action; but Mr Justice Denniston, although accepting a denial of the statement, said at the same time that ‘ it had not been denied that Major George’s protest was a direct result of Mr O’Brien’s action against the club, and that the one would not have been heard of but for the other.’ Altogether it is a pretty kettle of fish, and the issue will be awaited with interest.