ADJUDGED CASES.

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 entrancemoney.

It was decided that A was not disqualified, the term "winner" applying only to the horse that beats all the rest.

CASE V.

Whether a horse having won a sweepstakes of 23gs each (3 subscribers) is disqualified to run for a 50l. 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 Newmarket 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 1001. 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, 1st, That this was not a plate; 2nd, That no objection was made till after the jockies were weighed and the horses led away.

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 Tavistock 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 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 1007. to B, but declined paying it because he intended to pay it to C, who had a claim on B for 1007. The Stewards decided that A must pay the 100l. 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 stakes, 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.

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 XVIII.

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?

A. The money must be put together and divided.

CASE XIX.

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 start at seven o'clock on Thursday morning, they decided that the bet was void.

CASE XX.

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 XXI.

A B claimed of CD a bet of 500 to 20 upon Satirist for the Doncaster St Leger, which bet he stated he 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 201. 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 statements of both parties and of their witnesses, 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.