« PreviousContinue »
At a numerous meeting of the Jockey Club held at Newmarket on Tuesday, in the Second October Meeting, 1845, it was resolved. That the unanimous thanks of the Jockey Club be rendered to his
Grace the Duke of Richmond, K.G. for his Grace's indefatigable exertions and eminent services in the House of Lords, whereby many obsolete statutes which threatened destruction to the best interests of the Turf have been repealed, and the remaining laws in regard to horse-racing put upon a safe and satisfactory footing.
Resolved, That the Standing Rules and Orders of the Jockey Club be sus.
pended, in order to the election, by open voting, of Viscount Palmerston as a Free Member of the Jockey Club.
Resolved, That Viscount Palmerston be, and his Lordship is hereby elected an Honorary Member of the Jockey Club.
Resolved, That the unanimous thanks of the Jockey Club be offered to the
Right Hon. Viscount Palmerston, for the invaluable services which his Lordship rendered to the interests of the Turf in regard to a revision of the laws affecting the same, and that his Lordship be requested to become an Honorary Member of the Jockey Club, having been elected unanimously by a suspension of their rules.
Resolved, That these resolutions be forwarded by the Stewards respectively to his Grace the Duke of Richmond, K.G. and to the Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston, and published in the Book Calendar.
Resolved, That no races for Gentlemen riders be allowed at Newmarket during
the regular Meetings, without the sanction of the Stewards, and that in the event of such sanction being obtained, these races be the first or last of the day.
During the October Meetings, 1844, an investigation took place into the conduct of Samuel Rogers, with respect to the late Mr Crockford's horse, Ratan, which ran for the Derby stakes at Epsom in 1844, the result of which inquiry was that Samuel Rogers and John Braham were warned off the Course and exercising ground at Newmarket, and also that Samuel Rogers was declared to be unfit ever to ride or train again for any Member of the Jockey Club, either at Newmarket, or at any place where their rules and regulations are in force.
The Stewards of the Jockey Club having attended at Messrs Weatherby's office in Burlington street on Saturday the 31st of May, and by adjournment on Monday the 2nd of June, to hear a charge brought by Mr Gully against Mr J. F. Bloodsworth and William Stebbings of having conspired to bet against Old England for the Derby, in connexion with William Day, and through information clandestinely derived from him, and subsequently to lame or by other means to prevent the said horse running for that race, having heard the confession of William Day, and the evidence of William Barrett, jun. and of John Day, sen. are satisfied that Messrs Bloodsworth and Stebbings did conspire to bet against Old England ; that communication was kept up by Stebbings writing letters through Bloodsworth to William Day, which letters were sent under cover to William Barrett, jun. of Stockbridge, for several months. It appeared that William Day and William Barrett, jun. did on different occasions meet Stebbings at Bloodsworth's house in London, and at other places, to carry out their plans. It was also positively stated by William Day and William Barrett that Stebbings did at Bloodsworth's house recommend that the horse's foot should be bruised by striking it with a hard stone, or by tying a handkerchief round the leg, and striking the sinew with a stick, and if that was not sufficient, that he, Stebbings, could easily get a powder, which, being mixed with the corn, would stop him. They added that Bloodsworth was averse to the last part of this propo. sal, saying it was a lagging affair. Messrs Bloods worth and Stebbings denied the whole story of having desired William Day to maim the horse, but admitted that they had betted largely against Old England, in consequence of the information they had obtained from William Day; and Stebbings acknowledged that he had received full information from William Day for several years as to the qualities and condition of horses in John Day's stables, and had betted largely for himself and for William Day in consequence of such information. The Stewards therefore orderThat J. F. Bloodsworth, William Stebbings, and William Day be warned off the Course at Newmarket, and out of the Coffee-room yard there; and that William Day be not permitted to ride in any race at Newmarket. They also recommend the proprietors and stewards of all race. courses where the rules of the Jockey Club are in force, to prevent them from appearing on such courses.
(STRADBROKE. Signed RoSSLYN (for the Marquis of Exeter).
The Stewards of the Jockey Club, assisted by the Marquis of Normanby and Col. Peel, having met on Saturday the 14th of June, and again, by adjournment, on Tuesday the 17th, and Wednesday the 18th, to inquire into a charge preferred against Mr Crommelin, came to the following decision :
“We have examined into the charge against Mr Crommelin, of having offered John Day, jun. a large bribe to procure the defeat of the horse then called the Melody colt, in the Derby of 1840. This charge founded upon a statement made to Mr Etwall, the proprietor of the horse, by John Day, jun. was supported only by his own evidence, which we find to be utterly unworthy of- belief, contradicted as it was on many important points by letters in his own handwriting of that date, addressed to Mr Crommelin, and produced by him.
“It having been necessary for Mr Crommelin's defence, that he should place these letters in evidence before us, we further find from their contents, that subsequent to this period both John Day, sen. and John Day, jun. had not only continued but increased their intimacy with Mr Crommelin, whom one accused and the other believed capable of such atrocious villany, and that to this person John Day, jun. was in the habit of confiding the secrets of the stable.
“ The nature of this connexion appears to us to have been discreditable to all the parties concerned, but considering the length of time that has elapsed since these transactions occurred, we think it unnecessary now to take any further steps with respect to this part of the case, than to give the strongest expression of our opinion, that such a connexion as has been established is calculated to destroy that confidence in the faithful attention of public trainers to the legitimate interests of their several masters, on the security of which the continued prosperity of the Turf can alone rest.
“ John Day, jun. having before us endeavoured to support a criminal charge by wilful falsehood, we direct that he be warned off the Course at Newmarket and out of the Coffee-room yard there, and be not permitted to ride in any race at Newmarket.
“We also recommend the proprietors and Stewards of all racecourses where the rules of the Jockey Club are in force, to prevent him from appearing on such Courses.
“June 18, 1845.”
CASE I. A, B, and C run for a subscription, the best of heats. A wins the first heat, B the second.—C's rider, after saving his distance the second heat, dismounts between the Distance-post and the end, but remounts, rides past the Ending-post, and weighs as usual ; starts, and wins the third heat, and weighs, without any objection being made.
A, being second the third heat, in a short time afterwards demands the subscription (not knowing till then that C's rider had dismounted), and refuses to start for the fourth heat, which B and C run for, and C wins.
It was decided that, no objection having been made to C's starting for the third heat, he was entitled to the prize.
CASE II. The winner of a plate, whose horse had distanced all the others, applied for the stakes or entrance-money, which was advertised to be paid to the second-best horse that won a clear heat-one of the distanced horses had won the first heat.
It was decided that the winning horse cannot be deemed the second horse, and therefore was not entitled to the stakes ; and all the others being distanced, no other person could claim them.
The owner of B claimed on the ground of A's disqualification, he having, the preceding year, won a clear heat at Chelmsford, to entitle him, according to their articles, to the stakes or entrance
It was decided that A was not disqualified, the term “winner" applying only to the horse that beats all the rest.
CASE IV. Whether a horse having won a sweepstakes of 23gs each (3 subscribers) is disqualified to run for a 501. plate, expressed to be for horses that never won plate, match, or sweepstakes, of that value?
It was decided that it was the practice, in estimating winnings, to consider the clear sum gained only, and consequently to exempt the stake of the proprietor ; the horse, therefore, which had won a sweepstakes of 46gs only, viz. two stakes of 23gs each, was not thereby disqualified for the 501. plate above-mentioned.
CASE V. Mr Baird having entered two horses for the King's plate at Newcastle, in 1793, and won it with Sans Culotte (his other horse not starting), the owner of the second horse objected to his receiving the plate, on the ground that he was disqualified by having entered two horses. It was decided that Mr Baird was entitled to the plate.
CASE VI. A betted B that a mare should trot a mile in five minutes, in four minutes and a half, and in four minutes ; all of which, it was stated, she won with ease ; but B measuring the distance, after the races were over, found it was short of a mile by four yards.
It was decided that, as no objection was made to the measure of the course before starting, and the mare having performed the distance set out, and not objected to, A won all the bets.
CASE VII. After the race for the Somersetshire stakes at Bath, in 1829, it was discovered that the person in whose name Rasselas was entered was dead before the race was run, and Mr Day, the owner of Liston, who came in second, claimed the stake. The matter was referred to the Stewards of the Jockey Club. It was decided that Liston was entitled to the stake, because, of all the horses qualified to start for the stake, he was the first, Rasselas being disqualified by the death of the person in whose name he was entered.
But the Stewards thought that, in this case, as in that of a horse disqualified to start from the stakes not having been duly made,--the bets should stand according as the horses came in.
CASE VIII. At Canterbury races, 1829, for the 100l. given by the Noblemen and Gentlemen, Mr Pearce's Guildford won the two first heats; but Mr Mattam, the owner of Moor Buzzard, claimed the plate, alleging that Guildford was disqualified, his owner having run two horses for a prize for which heats were run.
It was contended, on the part of Mr Pearce, Ist. That this was not a plate ; 2nd, That no objection was made till after the jockies were weighed, and the horse led away.