« ПредишнаНапред »
course “ done brown,” for no other horse in the race had a chance with Rory. No reason was assigned for the sudden determination. There might have been a sufficient cause, but none was given, and the backers of the Field were left to chew the cud of bitter disappointment.
Friday.—The business of to-day opened with the Consolation Stakes (Handicap) of 3 sovs. each, with 25 added, for the beaten horses, once round and a distance, seven subs. and five at the post. -This produced three good heats. In the first, Mr. Balchin's Munchausen, 4 yrs, 7st. (Esling), made good running for half a mile, when Mr. Langridge's Shrewton Lass, 5 yrs, 8st. 515. (Edwards), went up, and they ran well together to the last turn. Here Mr. Falconer's Sister to Professor, 4 yrs, 8st. (Good), came up, and they kept well together to the distance, when Mr. Coleman's Chemist, 4 yrs, 8st. 71. (Coleman, jun.), shewed in front, and Shrewton Lass and Sister to Professor shut up. A smart rally took place between Munchausen and Chemist, the latter finally defeating the Baron by a neck. Mr. Scott's Bustard colt was lag last all through.-Second heat: Munchausen again went off at score, the Bustard colt close at his starn to the straight course, where the latter cried “ Enough.” Chemist now went up to the Baron, and ran him very hard for nearly half a mile, but the extra weight (211b.) told against him, and Munchausen beat him exactly as Chemist had physicked him in the first ; the others not placed. -The last heat was as well contested as the other two, the Baron keeping the lead to the distance, when Coleman, who had patiently waited upon him, ran up, and won the race in good styleno slight feather in his cap, the difference of weight in horses of the same age being taken into consideration.
A Hurdle-race, with a Purse added, heats, once round and a distance, was won at two heats by Mr. Robertson's Cigar, llst. 71b. (Martin), beating Mr. Land's Lottery, 12st. (Owner), and Mr. Box's Peasdorf, llst. 71b. (Owner), the first cleverly, and the second by a neck. This gave rise to a Match for 100 between the two beaten horses, 12st. each, two miles and a distance, which was won easily by Peasdorf: and thus, as far as the sport was concerned, terminated Hampton Races.
The newspapers, in giving their report of the “untoward event”. on Thursday, have deemed it necessary to say the Mr. Theobald, owner of Pauline, is not he of Stockwell-we should have thought such an intimation unnecessary.
On the following Monday, the charge against the rider of Pauline with having intentionally lost the race on Thursday caused a bobbery at Tattersall's, and several parties refused to “buck up.” One Gentleman, a Member of the Jockey Club, though a winner on the race, refused to settle until an investigation should take place for the purpose of ascertaining and exposing all who were concerned in the imputed fraud; and it was subsequently arranged that a Meeting should be held at Messrs. Weatherby's on the following Thursday, at which all who had bets on the race were at liberty to attend.
At this meeting evidence was received in support of the charge of foul riding against the jockey of Pauline, and it was then adjourned
until the following Monday, to afford the owner an opportunity of giving an explanation. All doubt, however, if any existed, was removed by a letter written by a friend of the rider (Mr. Curwen, who, it appeared, was confined by an irritative fever), in which he stated, that "just as he (Mr. Curwen) was getting mounted for the third heat, the owner of Pauline gave notice to him that he was not to win ; that without a moment's consideration he thoughtlessly gave into the arrangement, and the result is known.”
The following Minute, signed by one of the Stewards, and by Lord Stradbroke for Lord Chesterfield, still left the matter in abeyance :
Monday, June 17.-In consequence of the absence from town of the owner of Pauline, the Stewards of Newmarket are unable to give a satisfactory decision on the Palace Stakes run for at the late Hampton Races. Mr. Theobald is expected in town to-day, and the Stewards have been assured that he will immediately reply to their letter. Under these circumstances the result must be postponed till Wednesday. The Stewards recommend that the payment of bets to Mr. Theobald, as owner of Pauline, be suspended ; but they have no power to prevent any settlement of other bets on the race which may have been made by parties innocent of any intent to take unfair advantage. (Signed)
- H. J. Rous,
“STRADBROKE (for LORD CHESTERFIELD).” The Stewards re-assembled on the 19th, but the owner of Pauline being again “wanting," they postponed their decision till the 24th, and in the meantime directed letters to both Mr. Theobald and Mr. Curwen, desiring them to forward to Messrs. Weatherby a written statement or defence (if they have any) by that period. Should any decision be made on that day, we shall duly notice it in our
« SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.”
As regards the hitch alluded to by Mr. King drawing Ruby in the second heat for Her Majesty's Plate, a Correspondent in Bell's Life gives the following explanation :-"As Ruby had been beaten at Epsom by Rory O'More for the Cup, and having again run against him for the Queen's Plate at Hampton, and the result being the same, the owner had no idea of running another heat, having engagements with him at Goodwood and other places. The only reason he was not declared immediately not to start again was, that he had been told by Mr. Greville that he had heard that Rory O'More was lame. The owner waited with Ruby till Rory O'More was saddled for the second heat, and, seeing him gallop, found that the report was unfounded: Ruby was, therefore immediately sent home.'
THE BLOOMSBURY QUESTION.
“ York, you're wanted.” - Old Play.
In our last we merely gave the decision of the Stewards at Epsom Races on the objection to Bloomsbury's pedigree, and only made a slight allusion to it on the “ Settling Day," purposely avoiding entering
VOL. XIX.-SECOND SERIES.-No. 111.
upon the disputed point not that we lacked ample means to spin a long yarn on the subject, but from the wish vot to decide hastily and from irresponsible evidence on a question of so much importance to the general interests of the Turf. It has now assumed a more extended feature, the horse having been objected to at Ascot Races by Lord Lichfield previously to the running for the “ Ascot Derby Stakes,” and Sister to Hector having been avowedly started for the 200 sovs. Sweepstakes to claim." In the Derby Stakes, the pedigree of Bloomsbury being questioned after the race, the onus remains with Mr. Fulwar Craven to substantiate his objection: in the Ascot Derby the proof lays with Mr. W. Ridsdale, the owner of Bloomsbury.
It is scarcely necessary to state the grounds of objection, as they are well known to every Turfite; but to make our record complete, we briefly notice them. In the Stud Book, Bloomsbury is entered by “ Tramp or Mulatto out of Arcot Lass,” whereas in the nominations for the Derby he is stated to be " by Mulatto,” which of course would be fatal to his receiving the Stakes if the Stud Book were quite correct.” Much has been said of the way in which the Stud Book is got up, and Mr. Weatherby has been pretty tarnationly “called over the coals” for his alleged negligence in not being able personally to verify every entry. If Mr. W. had the property of the bird, which, according with Irish phraseology, can be in two places at once; nay, if he possessed the still greater gift of ubiquity, he could scarcely perform the duty required of him. In all concerns of magnitude, there must be agents to work the minor wheels of the great machine, and the best proof of his having availed himself of the most legitimate sources of information is the very few instances of incorrectness which occur in his volumes. To expect Mr. Weatherby to visit every stud, and enter
doings” of the various Stables throughout the kingdom at one and the same period of time, is not only unreasonable, but as impossible as it would be for him to attend all the Racing Meetings for the purpose of issuing a perfect Calendar. Here, as in the former instance, he must place reliance on the Stewards, or other persons employed; and, we repeat, the very few isolated cases which have been brought forward as proofs of inaccuracy tend only to shew the difficulty of attaining perfection in all sublunary affairs.
In the case of Bloomsbury, Mr. Weatherby received from Mr. Orton, the Judge of York and other influential race-meetings—and to what better authority could he make application ?--that Arcot Lass, then at Murton, was covered “ by Tramp or Mulatto,” in the season 1835. After the Derby, the objection is made, and Mr. Orton appears to give evidence before the Stewards—those Gentlemen not being “precluded from receiving proof of such qualification from the owner of the horse objected to if he shall see fit to tender it"-and admits that he might have been misinformed, but that he received his information from head-quarters—from the stud-groom at Murton, where Arcot Lass was a brood mare. This the stud-groom denies, adding that he was at Newmarket at the time, and consequently could not have given the information to Mr. Orton; and then affidavits from a host of under-grooms, &c. are brought forward to testify that the mare was only covered by Mulatto; that Tramp was sent from Murton early in
January; and consequently, that the nomination of Bloomsbury for the Derby was correet. On this testimony the Stewards of Epsom Races decide, " that Mr. Ridsdale had made good his entry, that Bloomsbury was qualified to start for the Derby, and that his owner was entitled to the Stakes.”
On the other hand, Mr. Fulwar Craven contends that the entry in the Stud Book is perfectly correct, which he shall be prepared to prove at the proper time and place, and consequently the nomination in the Calendar is not “ according to law," the 17th Rule of the Jockey Club • expressly stating, " that if the dam be covered by more than one
stallion, the names of all of them must be mentioned :" that the decision of the Stewards was, first, on ex-parte statements, and therefore not binding; and, secondly, of no value whatever, inasmuch asso we are assured-previously to that decision, they (the Stewards) had forwarded to Mr. Weatherby a written document, REFERRING THE DISPUTED POINT TO THE DECISION OF THE JOCKEY CLUB!--and, as a matter of course, that the decision of the Stewards could not be conclusive, as the case was out of their hands when they gave their decision ! This assuredly puts a new feature on the case from that hitherto promulgated : and as it is known that the Jockey Club are very tenacious of disturbing a verdict when once given by the Stewards of any race-meeting, Mr. F. Craven and the Earl of Lichfield appear to have no alternative but to appeal to a Court of Law.
We are given to understand-but do not vouch for it—that though Tramp did leave Murton “early in the Spring,” it was not till the 2nd of March that he was sent to Howe Bridge: and if this can be substantiated, it will be an important point, inasmuch as it tends to sanction the statement first made by Mr. Orton to Mr. Weatherby, that Arcot Lass might have been covered “ by Tramp or Mulatto," both horses being then in the stud-farm at Murton. Again, NEPTUNE in his communication to us, dated December 21, 1834, which appeared in the February Number 1835, says, when speaking of Mr. Ridsdale's stud, “Old Tramp, the sire of so many superior racers, is still there, blind from age, but otherwise looking fresh and well;" and after he left Murton, it is on record that “he covered seven or eight mares at Howe Bridge."
If Mr. F. Craven can prove his case, every Turfman will applaud his motives, and give him credit far beyond the mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence. The “law” must be enforced as long as it remains on the Statute Book of the Jockey Club, and it behoves every man to support the legitimacy of the Turf, and uphold its purity in all its ramifications not only in the spirit, but even to the very
“ letter of the law."
The only blame (if any) attachable to Mr. Weatherby is, that if he were assured (?) that the entry in the Stud Book was wrong, it ought to have been corrected by a note in his official Calendar when Bloomsbury was nominated as a by Mulatto"-or rather, we should say, Mr. W. Ridsdale was very remiss in not having called his attention to the error (if such it be) at the time of entry. So much for the first objection.And now for
THE CASE AT ASCOT.
The Stewards of Ascot Races assembled at Mr. Weatherby's Office in Oxenden Street, on Saturday, the 8th of June, to consider the evidence then to be brought forward by the Earl of Lichfield' touching the qualification of Bloomsbury to receive the Ascot Derby and the 200 Sovs. Stakes, for which races he came in first. The Stewards were, the Duke of Beaufort, the Earl of Errol, and the Hon. H. J. Rous ;; and the Earl of Stradbroke and C. C. Greville, Esq., Members of the Jockey Club, were also in attendance, having been appointed by the Stewards to assist them in the inquiry. The Stewards having announced their determination not to suffer any legal Gentlemen to be present, Mr. Thornhill, also a Member of the Jockey Club, consented to attend on the part of Mr. W. Ridsdale.—The Earl of Lichfield and the owner of the horse and his witnesses being called in, the Noble Earl put in the following letter, and produced the report of a Charge by Chief: Justice Tindal in a similar case tried at Warwick in 1831.
“ To the Stewards of Ascot Races. "My Lords AND GENTLEMEN--In making inquiries into the disqualifica-. tion of Bloomsbury for starting for the Ascot Derby Stakes and the Sweep-. stakes of 200 sovs. at Ascot, I have found the greatest difficulty in obtaining information from parties who are fully capable of giving it, but who are. unwilling to do so unless they are compelled to come forward by virtue of an authority which they dare not disobey. You are aware that the point to be decided does not involve any nice distinction of racing law, but is one purely of fact; and as neither you nor I possess the means of enforcing the attendance of a single witness, and as the chain of evidence, though so strong as to convince any reasonable mind, is yet of such a nature that the failure of a single link would destroy its effect ; I feel convinced that it would be doing the greatest injustice to my case to try it before a tribunal so constituted. I am bound, therefore, by what is due to myself as well as others, to object to your proceeding any further in this matter, which must necessarily be left to the decision of a Court of Law, where the attendance of such witnesses as I shall require can only be enforced. I beg, therefore, to offer this to you as a formal renunciation of any authority supposed to be derived from my acquiescence in your proceedings; and I hereby revoke and declare null and void any such act of mine : and I give you notice, that, in consequence of the difficulties to which I have in this statement referred, I shall not offer before you any evidence whatsoever, and that I protest against your making any decision.
. I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect,
“ LICHFIELD. “St. James's Square, June 7, 1839."
The Stewards then proceeded to read the Charge by Chief Justice Tindal, in the case “ Sir Mark Wood v. Atkins," Clerk to Warwick Races, brought by the Hon. Baronet to recover the amount of the Guy Stakes, claimed by Mr. Beardsworth, the real defendant in the action, whose horse Birmingham was first, and Sir Mark's Cetus second, but retained by Mr. Atkins, on the ground (as alleged by Sir Mark) that Mr. Beardsworth, or the former owner of Birmingham (Mr. Mytton), had omitted to pay his forfeits in former races, and was thereby disqualified by the 25th Rule of the Jockey Club, and consequently that Cetus (the second horse) became entitled to the Stakes.