« PreviousContinue »
The matter being submitted to the Stewards of the Jockey Club, they were of opinion that Moor Buzzard was entitled to the prize ; and referred to the Rules of Racing, the last but one in page xxvii, vol. 1828, as decisive.
CASE IX. Blandford, 1829.-For the gold Cup, by subscribers of 10 sov. each, it was a condition that the surplus should be paid to the owner of the second horse, in specie. Brownlock walked over for the cup, so that there was no second horse. The opinion of the Stewards of the Jockey Club was requested, as to who was entitled to the surplus. They gave it as their opinion, that there being no second horse, the surplus must be divided amongst the original subscribers to the cup.
It was determined, on a case which arose at Chelmsford so long ago as the year 1784, where the winner distanced all the five horses, that the winner could not be deemed the second-best horse, and therefore was not entitled to the stakes.
CASE X. The following nomination was made for a produce sweepstakes at Ascot :
Lord Tavistock's sister to Benedick, covered by Middleton. There being two sisters to Benedick, the nomination was incomplete according to the 17th clause of the Rules and Orders. Lord Tavis. tock ascertained that the other sister to Benedick was sent abroad some time before the stake closed, and submitted that this circumstance sufficiently identified his nomination. The Stewards of the Jockey Club declined to go into evidence of this nature, and decided that the nomination was invalid.
CASE XI. A question was submitted to the Stewards of the Jockey Club, in the Craven Meeting, 1840, as to the qualification of the Duke of Portland's Beiram colt to start for the 200 sov. stakes on Friday in that Meeting, for which stakes he was entered as a b. c. by Beiram, dam by Reveller, out of Veil. Veil had produced two fillies by Reveller ; one foaled in 1831, which was the dam of the Duke of Portland's colt, the other in 1832. It was proved to the satisfaction of the Stewards that the latter mare was not living when the Beiram colt was born, and they therefore decided that the nomination was valid.
CASE XII. For the Stand Cup at Liverpool races, in July 1829, Velocipede was saddled, mounted, and brought out ; but on being cantered, the rider found him lame, and did not take him to the post to start.
A question respecting the bets was submitted to the Stewards of the Jockey Club, who decided that the case did not come within the provisions of the 31st (now the 40th) clause of the Rules and Orders, and that the bets about Velocipede were not to be considered as play or pay.
CASE XIII. Two horses ran a dead heat at Newmarket. The owners requested permission of the Stewards to run the race over again between two of the other races of the day. The Stewards decided that the rule 43 (now 53) must be imperative, and that the horses which had run the dead heat must run again half an hour after the last race of the day.
CASE XIV. A bet of 2 to 1 was laid on Turquoise against Elinor for the Oaks—Elinor, being improperly named, was not allowed to start. The question, whether the bet was to stand or not, was submitted to the Stewards, who agreed to refer it to a general meeting of the Jockey Club, at which it was ultimately decided that the bet was void.
CASE XV. A admitted that he had lost 1001. to B, but declined paying it because he intended paying it to C, who had a claim on B for 1001.
The Stewards decided that A must pay the 1001. to B forthwith, as no transfer could take place without the consent of both parties.
CASE XVI. For the Lansdowne stakes at Bath, Mrs Day's brother to Lusher, Mr Sadler's Achilles, and Mr Wreford's Wilna, had each won a heat ; Wilna was then drawn ; Mrs Day and Mr Sadler agreed to divide the stake, and brother to Lusher walked over. Two questions were submitted to the Stewards of the Jockey Club, who decided
1st. That the bets should be put together and divided, in the same proportion that had been agreed upon in respect to the stakes.
2nd. That brother to Lusher must carry extra weight on future occasions as the winner of this race.
CASE XVII. The opinion of the Stewards of the Jockey Club was requested by the Stewards of Rochester and Chatham Races on the following case:
For the Chatham plate, the winner of a stake or plate in 1825 was to carry 7td. extra, and the question was, whether a filly who had won a plate subsequently to the entering for the Chatham plate,
but previously to the running for it, was to carry 7 ib. extra ?- The Stewards of the Jockey Club gave it as their opinion, that she was not obliged to carry 71b. extra ; and they stated that they were aware that conflicting opinions had been given on this question, but on mature consideration they thought the better rule was, that a horse being duly qualified at the expiration of the time of naming or entering for a stake or plate, should not be affected, as to that stake or plate, by any subsequent event.
This decision has been confirmed by an opinion given on a similar case, transmitted to the Stewards of the Jockey Club in 1832, from the Royal Caledonian Hunt Meeting.
CASE XVIII. A bets B 50 to 20 that C and D do not both win ; C wins, but D was disqualified from starting, as it was a maiden plate, and he had previously won.
Q. Does A win the 20? or is B entitled to a part of the 50?
A. If D was qualified at the time the bet was made, A wins ; but if D was disqualified at the time, then the bet is off.
CASE XIX. A bets B 10 to 8 that Whale did not win either the Garden stakes or the match with Beiram; Whale was beaten in the Garden stakes and the match with Beiram was off by consent.
Q. Is A entitled to receive or not?
CASE XX. On the Thursday evening preceding the race for the Oaks stakes, A betted B the odds to 1007. against Ninny winning the Oaks, which bet B refused to pay, on the ground that the mare had been declared not to start before the bet was made. The question was referred to the Stewards of the Jockey Club, and it appearing upon evidence that the mare was declared not to run at seven o'clock on Thursday morning, they decided that the bet was void.
CASE XXI. A, B, and C start for a plate (with four others), heats ; A won the first heat, B won the second, A won the third.
Between the first and second heats, the owner of C purchased A. Is A disqualified ?
On investigation, the sale of A to C's owner was acknowledged, but it was stated that no delivery or payment took place until a subsequent day. It was also stated that it was agreed between the owners of A and C that this sale was not to influence the possession of the plate.
DECISION. The sale of A to the owner of C, between the first and second heats, being established, A is disqualified, by the 6th rule concerning Horse Racing in General, unless C was drawn before the second heat was run.
CASE XXII. A B claimed of C D a bet of 500 to 20 upon Satirist for the Doncaster St Leger, which bet he stated he had made with him during the Epsom race-week ; C D, on the other hand, stated that the bet was laid against the Duke of Wellington, and claimed 207. of A B.
The bets were not compared before the race, and each party's case was supported by the entry in his betting book.
DECISION. After hearing the staterdents of both parties and of their wit. nesses, the Stewards are of opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to justify them in giving a decision in favour of either claimant, and they therefore decide that both bets are to be struck out, and no money to be paid or received on either side.
In order to prevent as much as possible the recurrence of similar disputes, the Stewards take this opportunity of cautioning all persons to compare their bets before the great races.
CASE XXIII. A case was submitted to the Stewards of the Jockey Club at the Houghton Meeting 1844, by the purchaser of the colt then called Perkin Warbeck, which ran at Ascot under the name of Bloodstone, involving the following questions: ist. Whether the forfeits due upon the entries of Mr Newman's
ch. c. Bloodstone, by Bubastes, out of Romaike, attach to the said Perkin Warbeck, so as to disqualify him from starting
while they remain unpaid. 2nd. Whether it will not be competent for the present owner of
Perkin Warbeck to run him in 1845, as being then a maiden
four years old, believed to be by Beiram, out of Romaike. To the first question the answer wasThat as it was proved that there was a colt by Bubastes, out of
Romaike, of the right age, for which the other horse was substituted, the forfeits are due for the Bubastes c. and do not attach to the horse which ran at Ascot by the name of Bloods
stone. To the second question the only answer the Stewards gave was That the race at Ascot did not disqualify the horse which ran
there as Bloodstone for running as a maiden horse.
COLOURS WORN BY THE RIDERS.
Lord Ailesbury ... Scarlet body, yellow sleeves, black cap
Black body, pink sleeves and cap
· · · · Mr Allen . . . . . White body and cap tied with a yellow
ribbon, yellow sleeves
Red Mr Balchin. ... .
Blue, white sleeves and cap Mr Bank . · · ·
Plaid, white cap.. Mr Bateman · · ·
. White, brown seams and cap
· Mr Barne . . . .
White, pink cap. Mr Batson . . . .
Crimson and white stripe, black cap Count Batthyany. .
Blue body, orange sleeves, black cap
Blue, white cap
Geranium red, black cap
, second colour. Blue, scarlet velvet cap
Green, with red cap, gold buttons
Orange and brown stripe, with black cap Mr P. Booth .... Black satin jacket and red velvet cap Sir J. Boswell..... White, with narrow black stripes, black
cap Mr Bouverie .... Brown, orange sleeves and cap
Mr Bloss . . . .