Sporting Review. THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1894.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume V, Issue 213, 23 August 1894, Page 4

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 1894.

The topic of the hour in racing circles is the addition to Sir Robert Stout’s Gaming Bill of the sub-section authorising the Colonial Secretary to delegate to the president of a “ representative racing club established for the colony ” —which title abbreviated spells, New Zealand Jockey Club—the power of issuing and regulating totalisator permits. The arguments for and against a New Zealand Jockey Club are too well known to need repetition. Auckland and Otago are staunchly opposed to such an innovation, and this latest spreading out of Sir Robert Stout’s anti-gambling tree has accentuated the opposition of our Southern friends. As the telegraph informed us yesterday, the Dunedin Jockey Club have registered a formal protest, and have decided to approach the Auckland Racing Club with a view of persuadthe local racing body to send a delegate down to the Parliamentary city for the purpose of conferring with a Dunedin delegate as to the best means of combatting this latest move on the part of the Statutes Revision Committee. Whether the A.R.C. will accede to the request of the Otago people, we are not at present in a position to say ; but it may be. taken for granted that Aucklanders will be found just as much opposed to the proposal of the committee in charge of the Gambling Bill as the jDunedinites are. While there is a Racing Conference held annually, it is argued—and with a great show of reason certainly—that the establishment of a jockey club with fixed officers and a paid secretary would be nothing but an expensive excrescence which would give to the Metropolitan Clubs (whose revenue would be diminished by such establishment) no greater benefit than accrues from the meetings of conference delegates. As things go just now the Metropolitan Clubs find it quite enough to keep going with falling receipts staring them in the face, and to expect them to calmly submit to a still further decrease is to credit them with the possession of a saintly forbearance, which is not, as a rule, one of the virtues of a racing club. If the proposed governing body were to simply act as a court of appeal there would be no opposition from any of the provincial centres, but the Government intention is apparently to force the various metropolitan institutions to agree to the establishment of a club whose power would be unlimited and whose habitation would be Wellington. That is just where the shoe pinches. The very mention of such a thing raises an angry blister of provincial jealousy, and one can hardly wonder at such a feeling. Apart from this question of jealousy, however, there appears to be good and sufficient reasons for the Statutes Revision Committee refraining from advocating the sub-section referred to, in the facts that no marked benefit would follow the establishment of a head Jockey Club, that the already labouring Metropolitan bodies would be placed in a worse financial position than is at present the case, and further, that the distribution of totalisator permits could be wisely and equitably distributed by our present Racing Parliament, viz., the Racing Conference. One way of looking at the proposal to take from the Colonial Secretary the issuing of permits is this — that whoever be appointed in his stead will hardly commit the blunder of issuing permits to tag-rag-and-bobtail clubs, whose racing receives no recognition

from the governing Metropolitan institutions.

The committee of the Auckland Racing Club met on Friday last and drew up the programme for the coming season. The card for the first Spring Meeting was drafted at an earlier meeting, and, as stated in our last issue, showed a reduction in stake money of £3O. Retrenchment has also been the rule in the succeeding programmes. Taking the two Springs, the Summer, Autumn and Winter gatherings, the cutting-down amounts to the respectable figure of £670. This is to be regretted, but when a certain gentleman well (but not favourably) known in scripture holds the reins there is no advantage to be gained by the team kicking. The A.R.C. have recognised that fact, and, with a well opened eye to the future, have wisely determined to retrench all round. The big race of the year, the Cup, has been shorn of £lOO worth of glory, but the event will be quite as attractive, both to visitors and locals, at the lower figure. The A.R.C. Plate, which has heretofore been a marked feature of the third day of the Summer gathering, has been eliminated from the card, and its place has been filled by the inclusion of an Ascot Handicap. The reductions from the first Spring meeting to the Winter meeting are as follows: — First Spring meeting: Handicap Hurdles reduced £5, Spring Handicap reduced £lO (the cutting down in this event will only effect the second horse), September Stakes £5, and Pony Race £lO. Second Spring meeting: Handicap Hurdles, Prince of Wales Handicap, Second Hurdles, Nursery Handicap, Maiden Plate and Second Pony Race £lO each, and First Pony Handicap £2O. Summer meeting (first day) : Auckland Cup reduced £lOO (which leaves it at £500), Pony Cup £2O, Handicap Hurdles £3O, Trial Handicap £lO ; second day : A.R.C. Handicap £5O, Pony Handicap £2O; third day : The A.R.C. Plate has been eliminated and the Ascot Handicap inserted, £5O being taken off the value of the race . the Steeplechase has been reduced £5O ; the Musket Stakes £2O ; and the Pony Hurdles £3O. Autumn meeting (first day): Tradesmans’ Plate has been reduced £lO, the Easter Handicap £5O, the Onslow Stakes and Pony Handicap £lO each ; second day : The Stewards’ Handicap, Flying and Pony Handicaps have been reduced £lO each, and the Steeplechase has been clipped by £5O. In the Winter meeting the two events for ponies have been reduced by £lO each.

Seven splendidly - bred Yankee trotting, stallions arrived by the last mail steamer, and were taken down to the quarantine station on Thursday last, where they will remain for fourteen days. They will be offered for sale in about a month’s time. The half-dozen arrived in very good condition, and when they are fairly set working on New Zealand mares most satisfactory results should follow. To take them in turn. A. W. Anther, an own brother to High Tide, is a chestnut horse foaled in 1890. He was got by Albert W., 2.20 (sire of Little Albert 2.10, Flowing Tide High Tide 2.171, etc.). Albert W., 2 20, was by Electioneer, who also sired Sunol, 2.8 J, Palo Alto 2.8 f, Arion 2.iof, etc., and 137 trotters in the 2.30 list. The horse under review has three crosses of Hambletonian, through Electioneer, Volunteer, and two Abdallah. Antrim, the second on the list, is a bay or brown, foaled in 1889, got by Albert W.—Jean ette, by Kentucky Prince (sire of Guy, 2.08 L a 2.19 and 2.iBf pair, and 24 other horses in the 2.30 list). His pedigree contains two crosses of Hambletonian. The third is Grand Moor, junr., a brown, standing 16.1 high, and got by Grand Moor (sire of Abdul 2.28, Myrtle T. 2.271, etc.). His dam is Corisande, 2.241, a very beautiful mare., Grand Moor was by The Moor (who has a record of 2.37), sire of Sultan, 2.24, who in his turn was sire of Stamboul, and twenty - five animals in the 2.30 list. Shoemaker, the fourth member of the half-dozen, is a chestnut, foaled in 1890, and got by Redwood, 2.27, the sire of George Grey, 2 27. The dam of Shoemaker is Pearl (by Silvertail — Ken tucky Hunter). Allan Dale (the fifth horse) is a bay bred in 1890 and got by James Madison, 2.17!, out of Bell Allan, by Vick’s Etham Allen, junr., the sire of Prince Allen, 2.27. James Madison was got by Anteeo, 2.i6|, a son of Electioneer. Pleasonton, the sixth member of the party, is a son of Elector, 2.31, the sire of Flora M. 2.16, Lizzie F. 2.i6|, Electioneer 2.20, and other good ones. This horse has for dam, Belle Robins, by

Parascon, who ran a mile in Chicago in 1.42. He is a very big animal, and has already run trials in 2.33. The last on the list is La Rue, a bay son of Campaign — Clara D., the own sister to Honesty, the sire of the crack Melbourne trotter Mystery. La Rue’s pedigree contains three crosses of Hambletonian.

An unpleasant incident in connection with the Christchurch Grand National Meeting was the riding of Lord John in the Enfield Steeplechase. Dennett had the mount on the animal in question, and from the accounts given of the race by eye witnesses, the jockey appears to have acted in a manner that disgraced his calling. After the first horse had passed the post, Dennett flogged his mount in such a manner that called down the wrath of the stewards. But the aforesaid wrath was estimated at a fine of / 2. No one will say that the C.J.C. stewards erred on the side of harshness in fining Dennett the Sum mentioned. Down South the feeling is that they erred on the side of leniency, a view of the case which we readily support. Without putting a fine point on the matter, the offence was a brutal one, and the Canterbury Times is not far out in urging that the punishment for such an affair should be a lasting one, viz., disqualification. Our contemporary, in commenting on the affair, remarks :— “ For a full-grown man in a steeplechase to deliberately sit down and ‘ cut his mount to ribbons,’ when the first horse has passed the winning post, is absolutely brutal, and the only punishment which is adequate for such a offence is that of disqualification. Possibly the stewards of the Canterbury Jockey Club had the very best reasons for inflicting such a comparatively slendej punishment. Very probably they had, but to us it does seem strange that a man that flogs a poor wretched animal in a useless and brutal manner, should receive practically similar punishment to that meted out to an owner for scratching a horse after the advertised time, or to that inflicted upon a rider who is a few minutes late in getting to the starting post.” Any lover of horseflesh will readily echo the sentiments expressed by our contemporary, and it is to be hoped that the expressions of opinion that have followed Dennett’s action will instil into his mind a more humane regard for racers than was evidenced by his treatment of Lord John.

A striking but not very pleasant addition to the history of turf affairs in the North Island was made in New Plymouth last week, when the claim for £SOO damages brought by Mr J. B. Williamson, trainer, of this city, against Mr Patrick Riall, farmer, of New Plymouth, on the ground of alleged libel, was decided before His Honor Judge Kettle. The case was gone into in a most exhaustive manner, and after a hearing extending over three days Judge Kettle found that, the defendant had no justification for the libel and gave judgment for the plaintiff for £250 and costs. Judging by the reports of the case published in the local press the affair was a most malodorous one, and it is a matter for regret that the sport of horae-racing should have had the slightest connection with such an unhealthy matter. In opening the plaintiff’s case Mr Williamson’s solicitor said ' that Riall had made an affidavit at Wanganui in March of 1893, alleging that his client had entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of “ringing in” a horse and thereby obtaining money by false pretences. The affidavit alluded to, after referring to the purchase of the horse Emmet, by Riall in Sydney in 1886, for a syndicate of three, viz., P. Riall. J. B. Williamson, and M. Cunningham, went on as follows “ I (Riall) remember Mr Samuel Powell wagering with me in or about the month of October, 1886, at Patea, on the breeding of the horse. The money was staked with Mr William Wilson, farmer, Whenuakura. Mr Powell wagered that the horse was an Australian bred one. I wagered he was not. Mr Powell took a note of the brands on the horse on the day the wager was made. Time was given—l think one month—wherein to find evidence of the horse’s breeding. In the meantime, after the wager was made and before it was decided, I and Mr Cunningham altered the brands. The brands which were on the horse when I landed him at Auckland were DR, conjoined on the near shoulder, and, I think, 301 (with O underneath) on the near side under the saddle. The alterations we made caused the brands to appear as jR conjoined and 307 (with q underneath). We altered the brands with an instrument which was lent to Mr Cunningham by a medical gentleman at present practising in New Plymouth. I

wish it to be understood that I am clearly of opinion that the said medical gentleman knew nothing whatever about the purpose for which we wanted the instrument. Mr Cunningham told me that he told the medical gentleman that he wanted to brand a young foal in such a way as to make a clear brand, but so that no person who did not know where to look for it could find it. After the brands were altered Mr Wilson wrote me calling upon me to take the horse to his place for inspection. I consulted Mr Cunningham about it. Mr Cunningham told me to write Mr Wilson a letter stating that the horse was lame and could not travel.”

“This was on account of the alterations in the brands not having properly healed I wrote a letter to Mr Wilson to the effect mentioned by Mr Cunningham. Some time after this I got a young man, whose name I prefer to hold back, to make a declaration that he knew the horse Emmet to be one of my own breeding, as I was aware he knew of one of my mares having had a chestnut foal which would correspond with the age I gave as Emmet’s age. That declaration was false because the foal mentioned died when a foal, but the young man mentioned did not know of the death of the foal. Mr Cunningham then said he would go to Palmerston and get a declaration made by Mr Timothy Donovan as to his knowing the breeding of the horse. He went to Palmerston and sent me a declaration purporting to be signed and made by Mr Donovan. Mr Cunningham told me when he saw me that Donovan had refused to make the declaration, and that he (Mr Cunningham) had forged Mr Donovan’s signature to the declaration. I myself made a declaration that the horse was of my own breeding. That declaration is not true. I sent the declaration to Mr William Wilson. Mr Wilson wrote me saying the brands as mentioned in my declaration did not agree with the brands that appeared on Emmet at the time the wager was made, and that he could not pay over the stakes without Mr Powell’s consent. I showed Mr Cunningham Mr Wilson’s letter. Mr Cunningham then told me to write a letter to Mr Wilson charging him with favouring Mr Powell. I did so. Mr Wilson then wrote or telegraphed to me saying that as I was dissatisfied with his conduct, he would suggest the stakes be handed to the Taranaki Jockey Club to be dealt with by them. I replied agreeing to the suggestion. The stakes (£10) were accordingly handed to the Taranaki Jockey Club. The T.J.C. then sent Mr [lately to examine the brands, which he did, and found them to be the same as I had stated in my declaration.”

At the March meeting of the T. J.C., the /committee of the club met at the White Hart Hotel to consider the evidence as to the horse’s breeding. The members of the committee then left the White Hart Hotel and went to the stables where Emmet was. They were accompanied by Mr Powell and Mr Wilson. Mr Wilson said, on seeing the horse, that the brand had been altered. Mr Bamuel (a member of the committee) said to Mr Wilson “That will do,” meaning that Mr Wilson should not suggest such a thing. The committee then returned to the White Hart Hotel and decided the wager in my favour. I received the stake (£10). I afterwards sold my share in Emmet to Mr Cunningham. I sold my share on the 17th January, 1889. Mr Williamson then took the horse to Auckland. Mr Williamson asked me whether I would support him and Mr Cunningham if at any time a dispute should arise about the breeding of Emmet. I said I would do my. best for them. . Mr Williamson then said that I would have to give him some nomination forms in blank, signed by myself. This was so that the horse should still run in my name. I was willing to do this, but I did not actually sign the forms. Messrs Williamson and Cunningham have, however, nominated the horse at Dargaville and other places in my name on their own responsibility. After this again Mr Williamson sent the horse back to Mr Cunningham, and he ran him in his own name at Waitara in January, 1890. I might state that Mr Williamson told me when he asked me for the nomination forms in blank that he would have to keep a ledger account against the horse, as he was frightened of being disqualified if the true breeding of the horse should at any time be found out. I remember on the day I landed the horse at Auckland, or on the day after, a paragraph appeared in one of the Auckland papers about the mysterious landing of a chestnut gelding. I then went to Mr WjlliauMOu’s private place at Kohi- •

marama and told him I had the horse in Auckland. I wanted to send the horse there and then to Mr Williamson’s stables. He objected, saying that all the Auckland public would follow him up. I bought the horse in Sydney, and gave my name to Mr Kelso as Patrick Tty an. When in Sydney I received a draft from New Plymouth made payable to Patrick Ryan. This was done at the suggestion of Mr Cunningham, so as not to arouse the suspicion of New Plymouth people.”

After a mass of evidence had been taken, His Honor, according to the report supplied by the Taranaki News, summed up as follows : —“ It is not necessary for me in delivering judgment in this case to recount the extraordinary details which came out in the evidence in this remarkable case, because I think the case is one of the most extraordinary that ever came before a court of justice in this colony—at anyrate of cases relating to racing transactions. The evidence discloses an amount of cunning, villainy, and rascality of the deepest and grossest nature, and such as one would hardly credit to exist in human kind. Here we have two men —Riall and Cunningham I allude to — concocting one of the grossest turf swindles, with a view of putting money into their own pockets. They take it into their heads and agree that one of them shall go to Sydney and bring over—or, in sporting phrase, ‘ ring in ’ —a horse on the community. The secret is kept dark, the club people are swindled, as well as the public, and these men put the public’s money into their own pockets.” After suggesting that the Metropolitan Club should take further action, the judge is reported to have said : —“ I repeat that it is the duty of the club to rid the turf of men of this character, and to institute proceedings so that justice may be done. I think the evidence shows there, is a prima facie case of perjury, conspiracy, and forgery, and I think it would be to the disgust of the respectable part of the community if these men were allowed to go about without answering these offences in a criminal court. As regards the case now before me, brought against Mr Williamson, the onus of the proof that he was engaged in this diabolical swindle, rests upon the defendant. The defendant sets up what is called a plea of justification, and alleges that it is true—-that Mr Williamson was a partner in this swindle; that he took part not only in the purchase of the horse as regards the payment of money, but that he afterwards took part in the endeavour to destroy the identity of the horse by altering the brands; that he was, in fact, cognisant of what was going on from beginning to the end.”

({ The onus (continued His Honor) of proof, I say, is upon the defendant, Riall, and the only evidence, it seems to me, that has been brought forward to support this view is his own uncorroborated testimony. Mr Williamson has gone into the box and sworn absolutely that he was not a party to this swindle, and Mr Cunningham, whose evidence is certainly not worth much, has also sworn that Mr Williamson was not implicated in the transaction ; he has also sworn that he himself is not implicated, but that is not initial at present. So that the whole of the proof upon which the defendant asks me to condemn Mr Williamson and to find against a man against whom, so far as the present case goes, there is no reason to point the finger of scorn, is the uncorroborated testimony of a man who seems to delight and gloat —although at times he did weep—in the fact that he is a villain. No, I cannot see my way, nor do I think a jury could—and I regret a jury is not trying this case —to consider evidence such as this unless corroborated. I therefore find that there is no evidence whatever to connect Mr Williamson with this swindle. No doubt he has been connected with Cunningham, and certain suspicions may be attached to him on that account. Mr Williamson has been into the box, produced, the correspondence and books, and submitted himself to examination, cross-examina-tion and re-examination, and I fail to detect —although he was connected with Cunningham in certain horse transactions —a scintilla of evidence to connect him with this swindle. The plea of justification has not been proved, nor has there been any evidence to support the libel so far as Mr Williamson is concerned. The libel is contained in the declaration. The question I have now to consider is one of damages. Mr Williamson, I do not think, sustained any actual damage, but there can be no doubt that a charge of this kind made against a man must be prejudicial to him, whether true or not. For many years to come the fact of this

charge having been made will affect him to a certain extent, and the facts —perhaps forgotten by those who now remember them—will be dragged to light and thrown up to his disadvantage. At the same time in giving judgment the Court does not —nor do I think a jury would — wish to unduly punish the defendant. I have no doubt that this man Riall has been a tool in the hands of a cleverer man than himself—l refer to Cunningham—and a willing tool at that, but Cunningham has taken good care that the whole transaction should appear in Riall’s name. The plaintiff does not ask for an exemplary amount, and if I give j udgment for £250 the justice of the case will be met.”