An Elaborate Review Of The Precedents Of Racing, Daily Racing Form, 1912-04-04

AIM ELABORATE REVIEW OF THE PRECEDENTS OF RACING W S Vosburgh handicapper for the Jockey Club has recently contributed to the racing litera ¬ ture of the day au interesting discussion of the Rules of Racing brimful of information as to the origin of various rules and replete with thoughtful comment Daily Itacing Form Is sure that its readers will appreciate Its perusal and herewith re ¬ produces it from the Thoroughbred Itecord as fol ¬ lows lowsPrecedent Precedent embalms a principle observed the late Lord Beaconstield The laws of the laud are construed with due regard for precedent Indeed no member of the bar or bench will venture to aivi his own construction of a statute without citing liberally from the precedents bearing upon the case It is thus that the common law has become largely a matter of preeedentT into which both parties to a controversy can look and both can generally find what they seek seekHistorians Historians inform us that when King George III of England was attacked by the malady which ren ¬ dered him incapable of performing his regal func ¬ tions the most distinguished lawyers and poli ¬ ticians differed widely as to the course to be imr sued the House of Parliament would not proceed to discuss any plan of regency until all the pro cedents from the earliest times had been collected and arranged Thus matters of law whether of state or racing cannot always be decided by opinion A decent regard must he had for authority for If we reject authority we reject experience experienceRacing Racing law can hardly be said to have been formulated Into a written code with tho formation of the Jockey Club in England A few elementary rules were framed but for the most part resolu ¬ tions of the Jockey Club governed The absence of a formal code covering all points led to many disputes and gave the stewards of the Jockey Club no end of annoyance In settling them But the con ¬ stant appearance of these disputes and the framing of rules to prevent their recurrence gradually built the Rules of Racing upon which those of nearly every country In the world Is modelled modelledIt It was not until 1857 that the Rules of Racing as we now have them were framed when for the first time all reference to betting was eliminated In 1SSO the first code drawn by a legal hand was formulated the work largely of Sir Henry Hawkins In 1852 Captain since Admiral Rons published a book ou racing In which he gave many important decisions in racing cases WUb tills exception there has been no attempt made to present a di ¬ gest of the laws and customs of racing with the interpretation of racing rules by the different au thorities thoritiesIn In presenting this it has been my purpose to em ¬ body all the adjudged cases of racing law of which I had any record While I have in some Instances given iny own opinion of the cases I have been care ¬ ful to avoid the spirit of ah uncandld advocate but have presented both decisions ou similar cases when they were in conflict It should e borne in miuJ that the decisions are supposed to be governed by the code of rules in use at the time they were ren ¬ dered and as the rules are revised from year to yejr decisions proper at one period were not so at another anotherThe The Management of Racing RacingIn In the government and management of racing rapid strides have been made in recent years though few seem to reali7e it Twenty years ago each racing club was a law unto itself construing rules as suited itself and courtesy was the only obliga ¬ tion binding upon them to respect each others edicts The formation of the Board of Control in 1S01 was the first step in the creation of a govern ¬ ing body but it was little more than a federation of racing clubs and was followed in 1S94 by the organization of the Jockey Club in which the in ¬ terests of the owners of horses were more fully represented representedCompared Compared with the present the management of race meetings in the past was crude The stewards acted in the additional capacity of judges at the finish They were often gentlemen of repute in the social and business world btit too often unread in the rules unfamiliar with racing customs while their lack of practice unfitted them for deciding close finishes The starters were either amateurs with little practice or professionals whose tenure of office was short the frequent changes begat confusion and delays at the post often brought the close of a days racing into twilight The duties of haudlcapper were performed by some gentleman a member of the club or the secretary himself who also acted as clerk of the course while the timing was done by such owners as happened to be present anJ who would consent to act actNowadays Nowadays all these are highly specialized depart ¬ ments a racing cabinet filled by men who de ¬ vote themselves to the duties pertaining to each department The exception is the stewards for which the times have developed a number of gen ¬ tlemen who have the time and inclination to serve something which could not be secured In the early days daysThe The Stewards StewardsThe The separation of the stewards from the duties of placing judges was a long step forward as they are not only dissimilar but they conflict The function of a judge is to place the horses at the finish that of the steward to watcn every horse in the race from start to finish hence to ask them to place horses distracts their attention from their special duties As now constituted the stewards arc three one appointed by the Jockey Club one by the club holding the meeting and the third a mem ¬ ber of the Jockey Club thus giving the governing body control The powers vested In the stewards are vast they have full power and control over the racing and all ersons concerned Their judgment is final except so far as relates to the interpreta ¬ tion of the rules in which case appeal may be made to the stewards of the Jockey Club ClubThe The stewards have power to change the conditions of a race which has not closed This has been denied hut it is perfectly clear according to the 14th Rule of Racing Their powers end with the meeting thus persons disciplined by them in the form of suspension are free to ride or train or start at a meeting following Hence iii flagrant cases the stewards refer a case to the stewards of the Jockey Club for further action It is not requisite to the validity of their decision that the stewards should be unanimous the majority ruling This has been decided by a court of law Parr vs Win tringham 1 Ellis and Blackburn 394 Nor is It an objection to a decision of the stewards that one of them had nu interest In the race by betting Tills has also been decided Ellis vs Hopper 4 Hurlstone and Norman 705 705Handicapper Handicapper HandicapperHandicaps Handicaps become a necessity when horses and owners of horses become numerous and races at scale weights become iuiK ssible Accordingly races are arranged based on the merits of tho horses by means of weight handicaps They save clerks of the course the trouble of thinking of framing com ditlons They are scientific races in that the art of man is emploved to equalize the chances of the horses engaged It has been urged that they reduce the value of a good horse but It can with more justice be said in reply that they increase the value of a hundred not so good they render it profitable to keep in training hundreds of horses that could not win otherwise This means more owners more horses more races more breeders better prices for yearlings and developed horses more employment for trainers jockeys and stable hands So much from tho standpoint of racing economy From the standpoint of improving the breed handicaps afford the only conclusive test of how much superior the best horse of the year is to other horses In short they are the backbone of racing they produce the best balanced fields the best contests and excite most interest Racing has long since outgrown weightforage races and clubs dislike the risk of offering many of them The position of handicapper Is the first one men ¬ tioned in the Rules of Racing He has become an important oilicial in the racing cabinet for no other post requires more racing knowledge and experience Unlike other ollicials whose work ends witli the days racing his work compels him to watch races through the day and spending the best part of each night framing his allotments As the work is enormous he must possess a capacity for work he must be purely judicial in temperament or become so by habit he must know neither friends nor foes nor must he credit much that he hears He must expect to hear that some horse has been crushed or after a lightweight has won it is suddenly discovered that it was thrown in all this repressionIn he must hear with composure and repression In dealing with the handicapper I cannot do better than to c iiote Admiral Rous Englands first great handicapper who writing on the subject observes observesAdmiral Admiral Rous on Handicapping HandicappingOn On the subject of handicapping there is nothing so easy as to find fault In every handicap there may be five reasons why A should give B 7 Ibs according to public running and as many arguments on the same ground In favor of B giving A weight Of every one hundred horses named for a handicap at two miles at least onehalf cannot run that dis ¬ tance iu good company and onethird of them can barely stay a mile Still there is dn understanding that every horse in a handicap with the humblest pretensions to a racing form have all as good a chance as the best horse It is on a pure repulican principle the sovereignty of weight shall level all distinctions of worth a charming idea but a pure fiction like all other doctrines of equality because no reasonable difference of weight can bring a bad horse on a par with a race horse horseA A public handicapper should be a man of inde jiendent circumstances in every sense and beyond suspicion of accepting illicit compensation for favors Attached to no stable a good judge of condition of the course but with a more intimate knowledge of the dispositions of owners and trainers he should be a spectator of every race of importance lie should never make a bet and he should treat all remarks which may be made about his handicaps with the utmost Indifference As to the handicapper signing his name most honorable gentlemen may object to be set up as the mark of every scribbler his handi ¬ caps may he unwarrantably attacked but he is pre clided from defending himself himselfIt It is his duty to put heavy weights on horses which he has good reason to suspect have not been run on the square or which have been kept in back ¬ ward condition There is nothing so fallacious as the public running of some horses These are my reasons for stating that no handicapper should be called upon to explain In trying to prevent a rob ¬ bery he may be unjust individuals must suffer for the public good As far as regards the system of handicapping it must always be imperfect because It is the object of many interested persons to de ¬ ceive the handicapper handicapperThe The Starter StarterWithin Within the past thirty years we have witnessed several changes in the method of starting The old American plan of starting by the beat of a drum was succeeded by the English system of the flag and it by the Australian starting gate While many were disposed to question the safety of the gate it has been clearly demonstrated that It saves time si ent in false starts under the old system in which the energies of many horses were wasted before the race l egun The saving Is enormous compared with the old system when often a half hour or more was spent in fruitless efforts effortsA A radical change was made in the revision of the rules of 1S98 by which the power to tine and sus ¬ pend jockeys was taken from the stewards in whose hands it had reposed and still does in other coun ¬ tries and vested In the starter It is a question if the change is for the better The starter at best has a vexations task tryiug upon his patience be yong the limit of ordinary endurance hence he is seldom able to approach in a judicial spirit a case calling for disciplinary actiou Moreover he is brought too closely in contact with the Jockeys to exercise the moral influence necessary or to punish them jvithout causing strained relations and ill feel ¬ ing which is opposed to the success of his efforts In the heat of the moment he Is apt to impose pen ¬ alties out of proportion to the gravity of the offense This could not happen if it were his duty to report such cases to the stewards for meanwhile he would have time to reflect while the stewards having no personal grievance in the case would be more likely to deal with it in a judicial spirit The Judge JudgeThe The position of judge at the finish is one requir ¬ ing considerable training It is common to hear people say that it calls for no special talent and that little lal or is involved There is no grent labor hut there is tension There is also necessary a very quick eye acting with the memory to place the horses when they finish close together Then familiarity with racing colors is necessary also These qualifications cannot be had without practice The use of numbers on the jockeys arm and on the saddle cloth have been added to aid identifica ¬ tion but many of our best judges do not depend upon them as it often happens that they cannot be seen on the inside horse when oue or more other horses finish ou a level with him himI I have often thought at some of our race courses the judges box was placed too low being almost on a level with the ground It certainly is too close for any one who has ever attempted to place horses will agree the further away within rea ¬ son you are from the horses the easier it is to place a finish the turf course at Sheepshead Bay compared with the regular course being a case In IKjlnt The judges box might be kept more secure from intrusion than It is as the judges need all the time between races to memorize the card for the succeeding race without interruptions to distract their attention attentionThe The importance of a correct placing of horses at the finish is apparent the more so when we con ¬ sider the power vested in the judge It is the theory of racing law that in placing horses the de ¬ cision of the judge Is final except of course in the case oftobjection to a placed horse is made and sustainwt on other grounds But so far as relates to placing the judge Is supreme his authority un ¬ questioned This is an adjudged case see objec ¬ tion to judges decision after race for Cumberland Plate Carlisle 1SSS However if the jude is i sat as he thinks proper By common custom three horses are placed but there is no rule compelling him to place a given number He can place four Continued on third page PRECEDENTS OF RACING Continued from first page P if lie thinks the closeness of the finish justi ues it or he need place only two if they beat the others inwnicn off A case occurred in 1903 at Aqueduct in wnicn as usual three horses were placed The Dinner was disqualified for foul riding and the race juen the horse placed second and second place to the horse placed third The horse placed fourth was served tue place only two horses should have bfcen Rules of Racing Selling Races Selling races are supposed to cater to the poorer ciass of horses The owuer enters his horse at the jaiue at which he holds him and if a winner to IMJ offered for sale hy auction to the highest bidder ver the price at which he is entered But in America no other class of racing has been so per ¬ verted A sort of understanding has for years ex jstecl that no one shall bid on a horse unless he has a grievance against Its owner to do so is a clial Jenge inviting bitter retaliation The consequence ° 0 which their owners would not sell for 3000 At times the abuse has grown so strong as to pro ¬ voke a reform movement of bidding but they have been spasmodic and the abuse while not as flag ¬ rant as formerly crops out even now When an owner can enter his horse far below his actual value and thus get such an advantage In weight as to insure him the race and back him for all the money farceIntimidation he can get selling races become a farce Intimidation by implied threats has prevented bidding and this became so frequent as to lead to the Incorporation in the rules of 1894 of what is now the sixth paragraph of Rule 131 Previous to 1S93 it was also a custom of some owners to start two horses in a selling race In order to protect the owner of the winner in the event of bidding as by finishing second he received half the surplus This was overcome by an amendment prohibiting an owner from starting more than one horse In a race closing within 48 hours of the day set for the race see Rule 126 126The The rules relative to selling races read that all beaten horses are liable to be claimed for the selling price plus the value of the purse or stakes to the winner The principle Is that horses should only be entered for selling races whose owueers are will ¬ ing to part with them for the combined value of the race and the selling price and therefore it should be no hardship if the horse is clalmed Yet in America to this day a claim often excites as much hostility bidRule as a bid Rule 128 formerly read that owners of horses placed shall have priority of claim in the order of their places This permitted another abuse of selling races as the owner of a beaten horse could induce the owner of a placed horse to claim his horse a friendly claim the horse being returned to his owner soon after This led to the amendment of December 11 1902 in which the clause giving the owners of placed horses the priority was stricken out and amended to read if the owners of two or more horses claim the same horse they shall draw lots The same rule 128 formerly called for all claims to be made within fifteen minutes after the winner had passed the scales As an ob ¬ jection might not be decided in that time the right to claim would expire by limitation such a case nearly happened at Saratoga in 1902 Hence the rule has been amended to read after the winner has been sold soldDeclaration Declaration to Win WinThe The rule relating to declarations to win Is often misunderstood AH owuer starting two or more horses in a raee is not compelled to declare with which one he intends to win but if he omits to do so he Is expected to have both ridden out to beat all the otlier horses For the Kpsom Derby of 1S27 Ixjrd Jersey started Mameluke and Glenartney and won with the former although Glenartney ap ariMl to be the best colt In 1SGS Sir Joseph Haivley declared to win with Green Sleeves or Rosi oriieian in preference to Blue Gown which won In America for Hie Belmout Stakes of 1S75 the late Mr McGrath won with Calvin although Aristidfs was the better of the two For the Withers Slakes of 1879 Mr Keene won with Dan Sparling although Spendthrift was a far better colt The race provoked unfavorable comment without reason for at that time there was no rule on the subject of declarations to win The rule as it stands did not appear until several years later laterSales Sales with Engagements EngagementsRule Rule KI relating to sales with engagements is often imperfectly understood When a horse Is sold with his engagements or part of them the seller cannot strike the horse out of any of such engagements but should the purchaser default the seller remains liable for the forfeits This is a hardship and the only relief the seller has is to pay them and put the purchaser in the list as owing him The Eng ¬ lish rule is better as it provides that should the horse or his owner appear in the forfeit list the seller can strike the horse out of any engagements and thus reduce his liability Transfers of Engagements A horse purchased out of a selling race cannol start for engagements unless the former owner trans ¬ fers them In 1S90 at Monmouth Park a filly started for the Oaks under such circumstances Had she won she would have been disqualified However there is no rule which prohibits the buyer starting a horse for a race for which he has been nominated if his nominator gives Ills consent But evidence is necessary that the engagement has been trans ¬ ferred to prevent the seller from striking him out at any time Hence registration of the transfer should always be made In this matter the case of Up Guards ited elsewhere In Racing Cases is in point Mr Pack purchased Up Guards of Major Westeura by private sale with his jengagement for the Chester Cup of 1S9S The sale was not regis ¬ tered accordingly when the horse won an objection was lodged and dismissed on the ground that not ¬ withstanding there was no registration the seller had sold the engagement and the buyer had the right to start Lord Durham one of the stewards held that in default of registration the seller couh have struck the horse out half an hour before the race and that Rules 91 and 92 were framed with the purpose of deciding disputed questions as to striking out of horses and the payment of forfeits However the Up Guards case caused Rule 92 to be amended in 1900 to read sales with engagements by private treaty must be registered to entitle either seller or purchaser to avail himself of the conditions of the preceding rule ruleEstimating Estimating Value of Race RaceRule Rule 78 provides that iu estimating the value of a race all money or prizes payable to other horses or breeders out of the stakes by the conditions of the race shall be deducted In England a similar rule prevailed until 1SS3 when a case occurred in which the Jockey Club held that the entire value of the race less his entrance and starting money should be charged against the winner and subsequently made it a rule of racing Thus If a horse wins a stake In which there is a bonus to the breeder or nominator it is calculated In the value to the winner and he is made to incur penalties of weight for winning money his owner did not receive Lord Cadogan was I think resiKinsible for this rule Mr Leopold Roth ¬ schild vigorously opposed it and the London Field commented upon the Jockey Club as tinkering with the law to accommodate their ruling and making statuable the violation of the principles of equity and adding the equitable immorality of the prac ¬ tice of sadding owners with penalties for money won by breeders seems to us to be patent patentAllowances Allowances Rule S4 provides that Allowances must be claimed at time of entry But if an owner makes a claim of say ten pounds and it Is found he Is entitled to oiilv live pounds there is no authority in the rules to enuble him to have it corrected and until such a rule is added the rules as they stand cancel any allowance to the horse and he must carry the weight fixed for the race as though no allowance had ever been claimed for him It is true the rule further leads a claim for allowance to which a horse is not entitled does not disqualify unless carried out at scale But this intends that he shall not be com iielled to carry the weight which through an error lie had claimed at time of entry and enables him to start without any allowance There is in the rules iso provision for correcting the claim the 10 fine of Rule 57 applies only to incorrect description or entry without partnership or Joint interest having been registered registeredRACING RACING CASES CASESVo Vo 1 Objection to Winner Wrong Weight Win ¬ ner Disqualified Four Days Later Stockbridge Eng June 27 1890 For the Hurst Itouriiu Stakes Cereza finished first beating Sir Frederick Roberts four lengths An objection to tht winner on the ground of carrying insufficient weight was lodged on the day after the race and heard at Newmarket on July 1 The stewards disqualified Cereza for carrying wrong weights she not being entitled to any breeding allowance and awarded the raco to Sir Frederick Roberts RobertsStewards Stewards Prince Soltykoff Mr Houldsworth and the Duke of St Albans 0 2 Objection to Winner Insufficient Description Objector Reported for Delaying Objection Portsmouth Eng October 20 1891 An objection was lodged against Ballybay the winner of the Corjwration Plate on the ground of insufficient de ¬ scription but was overruled and the objector was re ixirted to the stewards of the Jockey Club for his delay in proceeding with the objection j Xo 3 Objection to Winner Insufficient Weight Dismissed for Not Being Made by Proper Time Baldoyle Ireland September 15 1891 After the International Plate was won hy Detonator an objec ¬ tion was lodged against the winner to the effect that he had carried insufficient weight but the stewards declined to entertain it as it was not made by the proper time No 4 Misstatement in Entry Horse Disqualified for Omitting Name Scarborough September 1 1SS8 Seamer Handicap 1 Plate Mr Nays Courtesy filly finished first hut 1 was disqualified on the grounds of misstatement and omission in entry she having run at Gosforth Park June 29 1SS7 In the name of Her Grace The race was awarded to Nell Cook which finished second The stewards acquitted Mr Nay of any wrong in ¬ tention j No 5 Short of Weight Objection to Horse Started Startedin in Same Interest Objection Overruled Saratoga N Y August 17i 1871 For the Ken ¬ t tucky Stakes Sue Ryder finished first Joe Daniels second Alarm third Colonel McDanlel started two colts Joe Daniels and Hubbard Returning to scale lubbard was short of weight Objection was made o Joe Daniels being placed second on the ground iat he and Hubbard were started in the same in crest Colonel McDanlels The objection was over ¬ ruled ruledNote Note There was not at that time nor is there j now any rule In the racing code by which a horse can be disqualified because another horse started in he same interest and is short of weight With foul riding it is different as then all horses are dis ¬ qualified which are started in the same interest as lie offender In the steeplechase rules it provides hat when a horse is disqualified for any cause all lorscs in the same interest may be disqualified No C Objection to Winner Incorrect Weight Penalty for a Horse Dividing a Dead Heat Newmarket Eng April 16 1886 An objection to Theodore winner of the Friday Three Years Old Stakes was made claiming he had carried incor ¬ rect weight It was overruled as the stewards considered that a horse dividing after a dead heat s liable to carry a penalty for the amount he would have received if returned as the actual winner No DisqualifiedThree 7 Insufficient Description Winner Disqualified Three Weeks Laten LatenSutton Sutton Park Eng July 8 1869 Patchwork fin shed first in the race for the West Bromwich landicap The owner of the second horse Clario nette objected to Patchwork on the ground that le was not entered as Patchwork late Braham be case was heard at Goodwood three weeks later and Patchwork was disqualified for being insuffi ¬ ciently described No 8 Insufficient Description Age Npt Given Winner Disqualified Curragh Ireland June 24 1891 For the Curragh Plate Cry Help finished first but was disqualified on the ground that his age was not given in the entry and the race was awarded to No Go which came second No Go was bought for 95 guineas No 9 Insufficient Description Age Not Stated Winner Disqualified Owner Warned Off Hamilton Park Eng July 17 1891 For the irandon Selling Plate Commissary finished first nit was disqualified for having been entered with ¬ out his age being given and the race was awarded to PrimiiH which came in second The stewards reported the circumstances connected witli the case to the stewards of the Jokey Club who investi aled the matter at Goodwood on July 29 and warned Mr Robert Hayward owner of Commissary off Newmarket Heath No 10 Misdescription Case Dismissed DismissedSlieepshead Slieepshead Bay N Y September 14 1887 laceland won the Great Eastern Handicap Mr W B Jennings owner of George Oyster the second horse objected to Raceland receiving the stakes on the ground of misdescription Raceland having been nominated as by Billet dam Caramel his actual pedigree being by Billet dam Calomel The case being referred to the executive committee the following decision was rendered renderedThe The committee decide that it was evidently the iraiuers intention to give the correct pedigree that he did so to the best of his ability The fact hat he wrote Caramel Instead of Calomel Is im ¬ material he having been deceived by the similarity of names The description should identify the horse and so the entry was sufficient for the pur wse wseNote Note The decision was contrary to all precedents uade in similar cases several of which arc given The Rule of Racing Rule 15 in operation at the time 18S7 read readIn In entering a horse for the first time he must be clearly identified by stating his name if he has any his color when possible whether he Is a horse marc or gelding and the names of his sire and dam and if his sire and dam are unnamed or unknown such further pedigree or description or inrticulars as will distinguish him from all other lorses lorsesRaceland Raceland was not so nominated his dam was given as Caramel Instead of Calomel Already there was a Caramel by Monarchist It was urged that Racelands trainer made the entry and never liaving spelled the name Caramel suggested itself to his mind without any intention to mislead This Is taken for granted but it was an Incorrect nomi ¬ nation nationIn In England as far hack as 1838 at a meeting oi the Jockey Club it was unanimously resolved Thai it is the opinion of this club that no horse though coming in first shall hereafter be deemed the win ¬ ner of any plate match or sweepstakes whether handicap or not which shall be proved to have run or continued to run under a false description ant such disqualification shall remain in force until his proper pedigree shall be ascertained and re ¬ corded But no objection to the qualification of a horse shall be received after the lapse of twelve months from the time of running runningAgain Again at a meeting of the Jockey Club held June 7 1845 it was resolved That if a horse shall be fraudulently run or entered for any race by a false description such horse shall be thence ¬ forth disqualified for miming in any race raceAt At the time of Racelands Great Eastern the rule No 1C of Racing stated that The descrip ¬ tion shall be repeated iu each entry of the horse until an entry of him by description with a proposei name has been published in the program or list of entries of a recognized association associationHowever However Raceland had started throughout the season at St Louis Chicago and Latonia as a sou of Caramel His owner must have known the de ¬ scription was wrong yet he had made no effort to correct it itOnly Only a few years previous to the Raceland case Mr Keenes colt Burgomaster was disqualified for all engagements because he was nominated as being a son of Bombazine when he was really a son of Falling Star a precedent and a parallel for Race lauds case No 11 Misdescription Horse Disqualified DisqualifiedThe The Earl of M had declared the produce o oPasta Pasta covered by Drone as a bay filly then named Zelmyra The name having been misprinted Zullina he having another filly of that name nominated Zelmyru for the Stewards Stakes as Zelmyra sister ArgirloIn to Argirlo In 1839 Zelmyra by Drone out of Pasta started for the Anglesea Stakes but did not win She then started for the Stewards Stakes as Zelmyra wit sister to Argirlo added Objection was made as Arglrio was by Roller or Drone Objection was confirmed A similar case occurred at Newmarket A filly by Whalebone out of Moses dam was entered as a sister to Moses and disqualified as Moses was hy Whalebone or Seymour No 12 Misdescription Winner Disqualified Differ ¬ ence in Selling Price Returned to Owner Chelmsford Eng June 9 1859 Marks Hall Stakes for twoyearolds selling allowances win ¬ ner to be sold for 50 sovereigns Mr Flemings br t by Connaught Ranger Peggotys dam first Mr J Wards Maypole second Mr Evans br c Confusion third Winner bought in for 155 guineas The case was referred to the stewards who decided Whereas decidedWhereas The filly by Connaught Ranger which came iu first for the Marks Hall Stakes and im ¬ properly entered as out of Peggotys dam instead of dam by Venison out of Peggotys dam the stewards decide that the second horse is entitled to the prize and also that the clerk of the course must return to the owner of the Connaught Ranger filly the difference between the selling price and the amount for which she was bought iu when put up to auction auctionOctober October 28 1859 Signed H J Rous VAdmlral VAdmlralNo No 13 Misdescription and Insufficient Description The Go Between Case Objection Overruled Case Appealed Decision Reversed Sheepshead Bay N Y June 27 1900 After Mr A Shields horse Go Between won the Suburban Handicap Mr F R Hitchcock objected to him on the ground of misdescription he having been de ¬ scribed as a gelding which he was not The stew ¬ ards upon investigation found he was not a gelding but that in the original entry Mr Shields had not so described him no age sex or pedigree having been given but simply the name of the horse Thereupon the stewards issued the following followingThe The protest Of June 27 against Go Between as winner of the Suburban Handicap on the ground of his having been entered as a gelding is denied iso description of sex having been given in making the original entry Mr Hitchcock thenprotested Go Between and Or mondes Right as starters for the Commonwealth Handicap on the grounds of misdescription Go Be ¬ tween being wrongly described as a gelding and Ormondes Bight whose ige had not been given in the original entry The protest was denied by the stewards Thereuimn Mr Hitchcock under Rule 134 of Racing appealed to the stewards of the Jockey Club The stewards of the Jnekey Club reversed tlie ilc lcii nf lu etotvnnlc 4 4tlm tlm niutr onl l loi C Gc Between and Ormondes Right as not qualified s stirters for the Commonwealth Handicap Mr A Slields and his horses were suspended from racing r pud the license of John Shields trainer of the horses vas revoked revokedNote Note The stewards of the meetings based their decision on the fact that Go Between had not been j described as a gelding in the original entry Iat c opposed to this Is another fact namely that the nominator had omitted to state the age of the j horse as required by the third paragraph of Rule 51 In every entry after such publication his name and age will be sufficient This as an ad ¬ judged case see the Cry Help case No 8 In Racing Cases and Cmmissary case No 9 in which the owner was ruled off offThat That these details such as age sex and pedigree have been demanded in the identification made in an entry is a racing principle older than most men now living it Is only necessary to state that for the Two Thousand Guineas of 1828 Mr M French nominated a colt as Palemon without any further description An objection was made and the case referred to the stewards who decided he could not nottart tart No 14 Misdescription Winner Disqualified DisqualifiedEgham Egham Eng August 23 1859 Betting Stand Plate Mr W Days bay colt by Acrobat out of Albonis dam which came in first In this race laving been entered as out of Alhoni was dis ¬ qualified and the race given to Hand Over Hand which had finished second secondNo No 15 Declaration to Win Not Made Horse stopped to Allow Stable Companion to Win Trainer fined and Reprimanded Morris Park N Y July 13 1891 For the Hack ensack Handicap Col F C McLewee started Rey Reyel el Rey and Sail Juan It was apparent that San Junn could have won but Doggett his rider held lim declaraion back allowing Rey del Rey to win No declara ion to win had been made Mr M M Allen the therainer rainer of both horses when called upon admitted le had made no declaration and that he had told toldoggett oggett that Rey del Rey should win Colonel McLewee said he knew nothing of the omission to make the declaration that he had left that to Mr Allen The stewards fined Sir Allen 500 and repri ¬ manded him for negligence in regard to Rule 58 of oflacing lacingtfo lacing tfo 1C Jockeys Retainer Does Not Entitle Him to toFees Fees for Races He Did Not Ride New York November 10 1892 Anthony Hami ¬ lton a Jockey under contract to Mr P Lorillard and Isaac B Murphy a jockey under contract to Mr F A Ehret filed claims against their employ ¬ ers for compensation for riding fees for mounts mountsrhich rhich hnd been given to other jockeys and which hey whichhey claimed belonged to them under their con ¬ tracts The contracts were submitted to the Board of Control which body returned the following deci ¬ sion The jockeys named In the claims are not entitled to compensation for races in which they did not ride for their employers No 17 Objection to Winner Contingencies Not Registered NotRegistered Winner Disqualified Leopardstown Ireland June 5 1891 The Silver Park Plate was won by Golden Banner The winner was disqualified for having run in contravention of oflule lule 94 and the race awarded to Blanc Mange whicli finished second The matter was reported to the stewards of the Turf Club who fined Mr Talbot and andMr Mr F F Cullen who had contingencies In Golden Banner 50 sovereigns each No IS Objection Referred to Jockey Club From Want of Evidence EvidenceLincoln Lincoln Eng March 19 1888 Tathwell Plate won by Cinderella colt An objection to the winner on the ground of insufficient description was investi ¬ gated by the stewards but from want of evidence was JockeyJlub referred by them to the stewards of the Jockey Jlub who overruled It No 19 Objection Overruled Appeal The Decision DecisionReversed Reversed on Appeal RailwayJlate Sandown Park Eng April 13 1888 Railway Jlate The Celt finished first Spice second An ob obection ection groundhat lodged by the owner of Spice on the ground hat The Celt had carried the wrong weight was overruled Lord Lengau owner of Snice subse ¬ quently appealeiUto the stewards of the Jockey Club under Rule 39 VIII when they decided that The TheJelt Jelt was disqualified owing to not having carried a aKiiialty Kiiialty for a race exceeding the value of 190 so vs won as a twoyearold and accordingly awarded the race to Spice SpiceNo No 20 Conflict Between Conditions of Race and andRules Rules of Racing RacingSheepshead Sheepshead Bay N Y June 28 1895 The own ¬ ers of Mirage Messrs A H D H Morris claimed a maiden allowance in the Spindrift Stakes m the ground under the clause handicaps and sell ng races shall not be taken Into consideration he Was entitled to it notwithstanding he had won a selling race at Gravesend June 4 The case being submitted to the stewards the claim was denied deniedNote Note The decision was eminently proper for a maiden is one at time of starting under the rules The conditions of the race had been copied from those of previous years when tinder Rule 15 of the Rules of Racing from 1885 to 1S94 conditions of a race or of a meeting supersede the rules of racing when they conflict As this rule was omitted in the revision of 1894 the claim could not hold holdNo No 21 Objection Not Made at Proper Time Over ¬ ruled ruledStockton Stockton Eng August 22 18S8 Norton Plate Grey Friars finished first On the following day a Hedon Mr Whipp owner of Castagnette which fin ¬ ished second lodged an objection against Grey Friars for carrying the wrong weight The stewards dis ¬ qualified Grey Friars and awarded the race to Cas ¬ tagnette On the 28th Inst at York Mr Enoch the trainer of Grey Friars objected to Castagnette on the ground of having carried insufficient weight The stewards decided that the objection should have been made within 24 hours after the race and de ¬ clined to entertain it itNo No 22 Liability of Nominator Entry Ineligible by Reason of Age AgeNew New York January 19 1892 Cases submitted to the Board of Control 1 Mr D nominated several yearlings bred bredand and owned by himself in stakes closing August 15 The October following he sold their racing qualities to Mr G filing transfers with the secretaries of the racing clubs accompanied by acceptances by Mr MrG G interestin the only consideration being onehalf interest in their winnings In December knowing Mr G to be abroad but desirous of increasing the earning earningcapacity capacity themin of the yearlings Mr D nominated them in stakes closing in January The question arose arosewhether whether Mr D was liable for1 the forfeits in the thestakes stakes closing in January after he had parted with control of the horses 2 In January Mr D nominated two fillies filliestwo two years old in a stake for threeyearolds As they were not eligible the question was whether the nominator was liable for forfeiture or the secretar should have declined the entry entryThe The above being submitted for decision the Board of Control decided onlythe 1 It being shown that Mr D had sold only the racing qualities of the yearlings entered by him iu the stakes closing January 1 1892 he still pos ¬ sessed an interest in them and his nominations were therefore valid 2 That as he had entered fillies two years old in a stake exclusively for three years old the fillies were ineligible to start and the nominator shouh pay a fine of ten dollars for each entry Signed SignedW entrySigned W S Vosburgh Secretary January SecretaryJanuary 19 1892 1892No No 23 Objection to Winner for Omission to Regis ¬ ter Transfer of Engagement Case Dismissed DismissedChester Chester Eng May 4 1898 Chester Cup handi ¬ cap of 2550 sovs Mr Packs Up Guards first Mr Dobells The Rush second Mr G M Inglis Piety third On the day after the race the owner of the second horse lodged an objection to the win ¬ ner on the ground of change of ownership since entry and there being no registration of the same The objection was heard at Kempton Park on til following Saturday May 7 and was dismissed 5 being considered frivolous and vexatious Acting Stewards Mr C M Howard for the Duke of Wesi minster Lord Durham for Lord Chalmondely and Mr J H Houldsworth for Lord Enniskllleu EnniskllleuNote Note Lord Durham has since explained the decis ¬ ion In a letter to Mr Corlett dated Lambton Janu ¬ ary 8 1900 in which he holds the objection to have been vexatious because it was made 23 hours after the race at a time when the Chester stew ¬ ards could not decide it and that it was frivolous because it was not founded upon any rule of racing The rule upon which Mr Dobell objected was 92 of the Rules of 1898 which did not require registry as required by a Inter revision of the rule ruleThe The rule In 1898 read In all cases of sale hy private treaty the written acknowledgment of both parties that the horse was sold with engagements Is necessary to prove the fact After the Up Guards case Rule 92 was amended to read Sales with engagements by private treaty must be regis ¬ tered to entitle either seller or purchaser to avail himself of the conditions of the preceding rule ruleNo No 24 Private Contract Not a Subject of Dis ¬ qualification qualificationNewmarket Newmarket Eng October 11 1893 The Selling Plate was won bv Maltlne On the following day an objection was lodged to the winner on the groum that according to the terms of a lease he was no eligible to be entered In a selling race The objec ¬ tion was overruled and the deposit forfeited the stewards considering the matter a private one No 25 Entry Not Made in Time Horse Disquali ¬ fied Clerk of Course Fined FinedLeicester Leicester Eng April 8 1893 Yarm the winner was objected to on the ground that his entry was no made in due time and the stewards decided that the first entry made by T Mullen was not valid in accordance with Rule 97 and that the scconi entry made by telegraph was received too late Yarm was therefore disqualified and the race awarded to Fox On appeal the stewards of the Jockey Club decided that Yarm was never duly entered was not qualified to start and could not therefore be considered a starter They fined the clerk of the course 50 sovereigns for accepting an entry after the time fixed for closing and printing it on the card as a correct entry Fok was put up at auction at Epsom on Tuesday April 11 and bought in for 190 guineas No 26 Entry by Telegraph Confirmed by Person PersonNot Not Authorized Winner Disqualified Brighton Eng April 27 1893 In race for the Town Plate Pampero finished first and was sold to Lord Molyueux for 300 guineas The case going to the stewards of the Jockey Club In respect to foul riding by Nolan on Pampero it developed that Pam ¬ pero had been entered by telegraph and confirmed by a person not duly authorized Pampero was dis qnalified and the race awarded to Orange Peel which was offered at auction at Newmarket May 4 but not sold Lord Molyiieux retained Pampero at the Tice of a beaten horse horseNo No 27 Objection to Horse Nominated By a Person PersonNot Not Its Owner Winner Disqualified Sheepshead Bay N Y September 7 1901 Leonora Loring the property of L M Myers fin ¬ ished first for the Great Filly Stakes Objection having been made on the ground of incorrect nomina ¬ tion and upon investigation it appearing that she was nominated by Maj B G Thomas who was not her owner she was disqualified under Rule 50 of the Rules of 1901 and the stakes were awarded to Blue Girl GirlNo No 28 Disqualification RicJer Not Qualified QualifiedBrighton Brighton Eng November 1 1887 Southdown Plate won by Polemic Mr C Archers horse Mr King four years ridden by Mr C Elphick finished first The conditions of the race read to be ridden by gentlemen qualified under Grand National Hunt Rules jockeys seven pounds extra extraThe The horse Mr King was disqualified on the ground that his rider was not qualified to ride according t conditions and the race awarded to Polemic which came in second secondLittle Little Harry finished third but as he did not weigh in was not placed placedNo No 29 Only Two Stewards in Stan Three Re ¬ quired by Rule RuleWindsor Windsor Eng August C 1907 Menu finished first for the Castle Handicap An objection to Menu by the rider of Tom Wedgwood the second horse on the grounds of crossing and boring was sus ¬ tained and the race awarded to Tom Wedgwo xl acting stewards Sir R Wilmot and Mr G Ed ¬ wards Mr C Morton as agent for Mr J B Joel the owner of Menu lodged an api eal on the ground that only two stewards adjudicated on the case instead of three as required by Rule ICG The matter was referred back for rehearing and was investigated by Sir R Wilmot Mr G Edwards anil Capt R Greville at Hurst Park on August 24 when after hearing the evidence of the judge and of the jockeys who rode in the race they were of opinion that Menu crossed Tom Wedgwood and was not two lengths clear at the time They therefore disqualified Menu and awarded the race to Tom Wedgwood WedgwoodThe The clerk of the course was called upon by the stewards of the Jockey Club to explain why he had failed to arrange for the appointment of a third steward In accordance with Rule 0 The stewards after hearing the explanation imposed a fine of 25 sovereigns sovereignsNo No 30 Disqualification of Winner Omission in inRegistration Registration of Partnership PartnershipLeopardstown Leopardstown Ireland June 10 1890 Juvenile Plate NoGo came in first but was disqualified by stewards of the Turf Club to whom the matter was referred on the ground that she was not solely tho property of Mr Cullen and that no share or part nership iu her was registered as required by rule and the race was awarded to Moa which came in second secondNo No ClericalError 31 Objection to Winner OverRuled Clerical Error Clerk of Course Fined FinedLewes Lewes Eng November C 1891 Members Plate won by Joe Miller An objection to the winner on the ground of insufficient description and that she was wrongly described iu the registered lease was referred to the stewords of the Jockey Club who overruled it as they found that the original entry of the horse at Brighton in 1S90 was correct under Rule 80 but part of it was omitted from the card of that meeting They fined the clerk of the course 5 sovereigns for the omission omissionNo No 32 Objection Overweight Conditions of Raca Construed ConstruedDoncaster Doncaster Eng 1851 After the race for the Betting Room Stakes Nancy the winner was oh ieuted to for having carried two pounds overweight The conditions of the race were that a winner once in 1S50 or 1851 should carry three pounds extra twice five pounds extra Nancy carried five pounds extra for having won twice The objection wua that she won only once in 1850 and once in 1851 and consequently should have carried only three pounds extra The case being referred to Admiral then Captain Rous he returned the following decision decisionI I find by the official report of the Clerk of the Course that Nancy carried 9 st 2 Ib This weight st 2 Ib in my opinion she was bound to carry The conjunction or coupled the two events Nancy is therefore entitled to the stakes stakesNo No 33 Maiden Allowance Claimed for a Horse Which Had Walked Over Allowed AllowedBelinont Belinont Park October 10 1908 Mr J R Keenes filly Affliction finished second In a sweep ¬ stakes after claiming a maiden allowance which was granted On October 8th she had walked over for the Matron Stakes with Maskettc which also belonged to Mr Keene and the question arose whether she was entitled to the allowance There was no protest made before the race As she did not win no objection was lodged after the race raceNote Note The Rules of Racing read A walkover is when two horses in entirely different interests do not run for a race Maskette and Affliction were the only starters for the Matron and both the prop ¬ erty of Mr Keene The result was officially re ¬ turned as a walkover If such were the case Afflic ¬ tion was not entitled to a maiden allowance in the race of October 10 for Rule 79 reads Winning shall include dividing walking over or receiving forfeit The rules do not seem to contemplate two horses walking over Mr P Lorillards Pizarro and Gonfalon for the Trenton Stakes of 1883 being the only case I can recall For the Matron Stakes only half the added money was paid and Affliction was not given the 1000 second money Both these facts establish the event as a walkover and AtHIc tion a winner for the purposes of the rules Either the Matron was a walkover and Affliction was liot entitled to a maiden allowance or It was a race In which case she was entitled to second money whicn she did not receive receiveNo No 34 Objection tp Horse Starting for Privata PrivataClaim Claim Declared Frivolous Deposit Forfeited Lanark September 23 1890 Wishaw Handicap Hopeful came in third but was disqualified as her rider could not draw bis weight The owner of Hopeful objected to Chieftain starting for the race on the ground that he had not had any settlement as part owner The objection was declared to be friv ¬ olous and the deposit ordered to be forfeited forfeitedNo No 35 Horse Claimed Objection to Claim on the Ground that the Winner Had Not Passed Scale Overruled OverruledEpsom Epsom Eng April 23 1890 Kingswood Stakes Mr Maple owner of third horse claimed Ringlet which horse had finished second Mr Smith Ring ¬ lets owner objected to the claim on the ground that the winner had not passed the scale when it was made The stewards Lord Suffolk acting for Prince Soltykoff overruled the objection on the ground that it was frivolous and fined Mr Smith 5 sovs No 30 Selling Race Dead Heat Winners Sold SurplusYonkers Disposition of the Surplus Yonkers N Y July IS 1910 Sir Cleges and Apologize ran a dead heat for the selling race and divided Both horses were offered by auction There was no bid on Apologize Sir Cleges was bought In for 1005 an advance of 405 surplus over his selling price The surplus was divided equally 520200 each between the owners of Sir Cleges and Apologize Not0 Ths division was not in accordance with Paragraph of Rule 131 which reads Botii ie shall be put to auction and any surplus shall be dl ytled half to go between those horses and half to the Association Accordingly the owner of each horse should have received 10125 and the Associa AssociaNo No 37 Selling Race Friendly Purchase Horse Returned to Owner Owner Fined FinedSaratoga Saratoga N Y August 16 1910 Mr S C Ilil dreths horse Woodcraft after the selling race was purchased by Mr P Dunne A few days after th race it was found that the horse was again in Mr Hildreths stable The stewards Inquired into the case Mr Dunne admitted he had returned the horse but said he was not aware that to do so was an infraction of the rule The stewards thereupon issued the following In respect of the transfer of the horse Wood craft the stewards find it was not bona flde Mr ¬ Dunne Is believed to have acted in ignorance of the rule Mr HHdreth is fined 200 for an infractioS of the following Rule of Racing aton atonRule Rule 131 Any person who shall attempt to nre vent another person from bidding on the winner of selling race or c aiming any Aorse in such n demand any portion of the sOTpinsrfrrom the race or of horses which are entitled to tlfckor any Twne owiiew contravention of these rules shall be fined suspended or ruled off Signed SignedP P R Hitchcock A Daingcrficld W S Vosburgh No 38 Selling Race Friendly Claim Claimed ClaimedHorse Horse Returned to Owner Botli Owners Fined FinedSaratoga Saratoga N Y August 20 100C Mr Drakes liorsc Wcs beaten in the fifth race was claimed by G S Davis and M L Hayman In the toss Tip Mr Hnyman was awarded the horse at the claiming price 1460 It was found that the horse bad l een returned by Mr Hayman to Mr Drake shortly after the race The stewards investigated the trans ¬ fer of Ves and declared it a friendly claim and therefore irregular notwithstanding Mr Haymans statement that he had resold the borse to Mr Drake at a profit Thereupon the stewards issued the fol ¬ lowing The stewards of the meeting fine Mr J A Drake and Mr M L Hayman 200 each for an in ¬ fringement of the Sixth Section of Rule 131 of Racing No 39 Short of Weight Bridle Put in S ale Horse Disqualified DisqualifiedAqueduct Aqueduct N Y July 17 1S95 Mirage finished first in the fourth race On weighing in his jockey OLcary was a pound and a half short of weight The stewards allowed him to draw his weight with the bridle and he passed the scale scaleOn On appeal to the stewards of the Jockey Club July 24 Mirage was disqualified on the ground that his jockey weighing In with his bridle was in con ¬ travention of Bule SO and the race given to Ablng don donNo No 40 Selling Kacc Claimant of Second Horse Compelled to Pay Full Amount of Stakes StakesBrighton Brighton Beach August 10 1805 Emma Gutta Percha and Annie Bishop finished first second and third In a selling sweepstakes of 100 of which 75 to second and 25 to third thirdEmmas Emmas owner Mr Burridgc claimed Gntta Percha Her entered price was 1500 The Asso ¬ ciation charged him 1900 He claimed that he should be charged only 1800 and quoted Rule 78 of Racing 1S95 viz In estimating the value of the race there shall be deducted any money pay ¬ able to other horses or out of stakes by the condi ¬ tions of the meeting His claim was overruled on an appeal to the stewards of the Jockey Club and the decision of the Brighton stewards sustained on the ground that Rule 127 of 1895 stated that horses starting may be claimed for the selling price plus the value of the stakes or purse Note purseNote I have always thought the above decision was In contravention of the letter and spirit of the rules of 1895 The value of a race was stated in Rule 78 as given above The custom had always been to construe the rule cither in respect of a penalty or a claim as to prohibit a horse being charged for money payable to other horses The custom had been to deduct any money payable to other horses The decision in Gutta Perchas case made her owner win more money by running second than Emmas did by winning the race Emma the winner received 300 Gutta Pcrchas buyer being charged 400 over her entered price and 75 second money made her owner win 475 while the owner of Emma the winner received only 300 300The The evident intent of the rule was that an owner shall not be charged for what be docs not or could not win an od and well established principle of racing It is possible the decision was made by overlooking Rule 78 and a literal construction of Rule 127 taking the word value to mean gross in ¬ stead of to the winner as provided In Rule 78 No 41 Selling Race Price Not Stated at Time Called for by Conditions Entry Refused RefusedSaratoga Saratoga N Y August 3 1900 For the Worden House Stakes selling Lady of the Valley was named as a starter an hour before the race to carry weightforagc As the conditions of the race read soiling price to be stated through the entrybox fit the time of closing entries on the day preceding be race the stewards decided that the entry was not in conformity with the conditions of the race i and Lady of the Valley was not qualified to start startNote Note At the time several precedents were cited Jo show that where the conditions had been similarly worded owners who had omitted to enter horses through the entrybos on the day preceding the race and stating selling price had been permitted to name on the day of the race by entering at top price and carrying weightforage It was how ¬ ever a clear violation of the conditions It enables an owner to hold his entry out until the day of the race when he knows with which horses his horse will have to race a knowledge that is denied those who comply with the conditions No 42 Selling Race Authorized Agent Not Regis ¬ tered Claim of Horse Denied DeniedGravesend Gravesend N Y September 22 1897 In selling race Mr Caruthers owner of Song and Dance claimed Howard Mann subsequently Mr E J Bald ¬ win claimed Howard Mann through bis trainer F 1 Taylor Mr Baldwin having run second with Bern ardillo had priority of claim Mr Caruthers pro ¬ tested on the ground that tinder Rule 127 of the Rules of 1897 only owners of horses running or their authorised agents could claim and that Taylor was not an authorized agent of Baldwin under the definition of Rule 1 of 1897 in that his authority was not registered with the Jockey Club ClubThe The Stewards finding such to be the case de ¬ cided that Mr Caruthers was entitled to the horse Howard Mann and he was delivered by Mr Bald ¬ win to Mr Carulhers CarulhersNo No 43 Selling Race Sale Declared Illegal Be ¬ cause Money was Not Added as Advertised AdvertisedBrighton Brighton Eng August 5 1SCS Capt Mitchells Sir Oliver won the Sussex Stakes selling The winner upon being offered for sale was sold to Mr W G Bennett for 210 guineas Capt Machell objected on the ground that as the money adver ¬ tised In the conditions viz 100 sovereigns to be given was iot added the sale was illegal The Stewards Admiral Rons and Lord Westmoreland decided the sale illegal illegalNo No 44 Starters Statement Conclusive False Start Race Run Over OverWindsor Windsor Eng June 1C 1869 There was a false start for the Windsor Handicap and most of the horses ran the course The starter declared he had not given the signal to start and the Stewards ordered the race to be run over No 45 Winner Struck Out of Engagement Dis ¬ qualified qualifiedBromley Bromley Eng April 21 1869 Red White and Blue finished first in the race for the Bickley Stakes but objection jvas made to him on the ground that be had been struck out of the engagement two days previously and he was disqualified No 40 False Start Run Over Complaint of Starter Dismissed DismissedCarlisle Carlisle Eng July 1 1890 Cumberland Plate There was a false start for this race when all the horses except Rcdsand ran the course Tyrant came in first beating Barmecide by half a length In the actual race Barmecide won by four lengths Horton and Lord Marmion did not start the second time timeThe The starter when called upon by the stewards declared the first race to be no start and added that the joekeys had started without his orders and that he had never dropped his flag When asked by the stewards be replied that be had no complaint to make against the jockeys The following day the starter wished to report the jockeys for misconduct but the stewards remembering his reply of the day before did not feel justified in acting on the com ¬ plaint No 47 False Start Race Run Over Three Times TimesSaratoga Saratoga N Y August 13 1900 For the first race of the day Terrorist Lieber Karl and His Royal Highness ran the entire distance to a false start Mr Caldwcll the starter reported that be had not started the horses although the jockeys claimed the advance flag had fallen The stewards ordered the horses to the post when in another breakaway Lady Contrary His Royal Highness and Hasbcen ran the entire distance the others pulling up Tbe starter again reported to the stewards that be had not started them but it appeared that the advance flagman bad dropped his flag The stewards ordered the horses to the post again and after the race discharged the advance flagman The stewards was in conformity with Rule RuleNo 106 No 45 Wrong Distance Race Declared Void but Added Money Awarded to the Winner Sndlmry WinnerSndlmry Eng February 2 18G9 After the Sud bury Handicap the owner of Vision one of the Btartcrs objected to the winner on the ground that the race had not been run at the proncr distance The stewards referred the case to Admiral Rous who gave the following decision decisionThe The horses being started at the wrong post shortening the distance the race is void ana all bets arc off As the jockeys had no power to dis ¬ obey the orders of the starter it would be unjust that the owners of the hordes should suffer from neglect of the JCBBIC The forty sovereigns adver ¬ tised must be paid to the horse which came in first and the five sovereigns sweepstakes returned to their respective owners Signed H J Rous No 49 Starters Mistake Field Started Short of Three Horses Race Run Over OverKingsbury Kingsbury Eng July 23 1SG9 Ten horses were weighed In for the Selling Handicap The starter by mistake started only seven horses before Amour Propre and Inuendo had reached the post the latter joining in the race and coining in first The stew ¬ ards decided it vas no race and ordered It run over Amour Proprc winning winningNo No 50 Penalties and Allowances Allowance Can Not Be Deducted from Penalty PenaltyMorris Morris Park N Y June 9 1891 Sweepstakes for all ages winners at any timeof 3000 tocarry 7 pounds extra and winners of three races in 1891 to tyuay 15 pound extra Nonwtaferg at toy time of 2000 allowed 5 pounds of 1000 ajlowed 7 pounds poundsMessrs Messrs J A and A H Morris filly LIntriguantc three years old was entered and her owners claimid that while she had won three races in 1891 she bad never won a race of 1000 value hence that whila she incurred a penalty of 15 pounds for winning three races it was offset by her not having won race of 1000 for which they claimed the allowance of 7 pounds deducting which from her penalty made her weight 110 pounds and she was so en tercd The case being taken to the judges they al ¬ lowed the claim but on appeal to the stewards Mr Withers as senior steward returned a decision that a penalty was imperative and that an allowance could not be deducted from a penalty and that L Intriguante must carry the full penalty making her weight 117 pounds or 15 pounds added to scale scaleNote Note With all due respect to so eminent an au ¬ thority as Mr Withers who was certainly one of the greatest either Europe or this country has known in the LIntriguante case his decision was contrary to all practice in similar cases Clearly if a horse can Incur a penalty under the conditions of a race he is likewise entitled to any allowance of weight under its conditions when there is no stipulation in the conditions that be shall not be beNo No 51 Penalties and Allowances An Allowance Deducted from a Penalty PenaltyWashington Washington D C November 19 1902 Vestal Stakes for fillies three years old nonwinners of 2000 in 1901 and nonwinners of 3000 in 1902 at time of starting to carry 123 pounds The win ¬ ner of the Dixie Stakes to carry 5 pounds extra Nonwinners of 2000 allowed 5 pounds of 1500 allowed 7 pounds of two races of 1000 allowed 10 poundsAdelaide pounds Adelaide Prince bad won the Dixie Stakes but she had never won 2000 Thus she had earned a penalty and an allowance The question of the weight she should carry having been presented tiip stewards decided that the allowance should be de ¬ ducted from the penalty and thus offset it making her weight 123 pounds instead of 128 pounds No 52 Beaten Allowance Claimed by Winner Race Declared Void VoidKcmpton Kcmpton Park Eng July 15 1SS1 Cloisteress finished first but an objection to the winner for claiming a beaten allowance of four pounds in con ¬ travention of Rule 10 III was lodged by Captain Machell on behalf of Lord Calthorpe owner of the second horse The stewards of Kempton Park hav ¬ ing decided previously to the race that the conditions were legal and Cloisteress was entitled to the four pound allowance being guided in this decision by a decision given by the stewards of Chester and also by the fact that the only alternative was declaring the race void which was not keeping faith with the public considered that Cloisteress was entitled to the race but gave Lord Calthorpe a right to appeal to the stewards of the Jockey Club On Lord Calthorpes appeal the stewards of the Jockey Club decided that the conditions were In contra ¬ vention of the Rules of Racing and that the race should be declared null and void No 53 Allowances Handicap Winner Denied and Held to Have Won at Weigh tforAgc The Tar ¬ bouche Case CaseJerome Jerome Park N Y October 6 1887 In purse for threeyearolds and upward Mr A Belmont claimed an allowance of seven pounds for his filly Tarbouche 3 years under the conditions of the race horses not having won in 1887 when carry ¬ ing weightforage or more allowed seven pounds Tarbouche had won at Monmouth Park August 67 the Seaside Stakes a welter handicap with 420 pounds or fourteen pounds over her weight for age Mr Belmont claimed that the fact that the race she had won being a handicap did not apply that tho Clause contemplated a weightforage race The judges denied Mr Belmonts claim claimNo No 54 Disqualified Horse Reinstated as Winner WinnerAlexandria Alexandria Park Eng September 12 1903 Moderate Plate of 100 for threeyearolds and up ¬ wards entrance 3 winner and second free one and onehalf miles and 110 yards 17 entries 100 Sir J Blundell Maples Royal Minister by Royal Hampton RoyalHampton 4 7st 12 Ib W Lane 1 1Mr Mr A Waltons Balade 3 7 st 8 lbsBoardman 2 Mr W C Whitneys White Webbs 3 7 st 11 Ibs J H Martin 3 3Mr Mr W Murrays Tonsure 5 7 st 9 Ib car ¬ ried 7 st 10 Ibs B Dillon Mr Ferns Persifleur 3 7 St 1 Ib W Clark Mr M N Rhodes Postmans Knock 5 7st 9 Ibs O Madden DisqualifiedSix Disqualified Six to four against Royal Minister 8 to 1 White Webbs 4 to 1 Postmans Knock 11 to 2 Balada Royal Minister came in first beating Postmans Knock by a short head Balada being third beaten two lengths White Webbs fourth Tonsure got off badly An objection to Royal Minister on the ground of boring was sustained and the race award ¬ ed to Postmans Knock Acting stewards Mr Hugh Owen for Lord Ebury and Mr Chetwynd for Lord Lurgan Mr Bird on behalf of Sir J Blundel Maple and Mr Walton then both lodged objections to Postmans Knock on the ground tbat he carried insufficient weight and he was disquali ¬ fied Mr Bird lodged a second objection on the ground that Mr Rhodes had officiated at an unrecog ¬ nized meeting in contravention of Rule 178 a of the Rules of Racing Mr Rhodes admitted that he had done so but was not aware that he had in ¬ fringed the rules The stewards were of opinion that Mr Rhodes was thereby disqualified from enter ¬ ing or running any horse in any race under the Rules of Racing that the entry of Postmans Knock was invalid and tbat consequently no objection on bis behalf could be entertained Under these cir ¬ cumstances they reinstated Royal Minister as the winner but gave leave to the owner of Balada which originally finished third to appeal to the stewards of the Jockey Club upon the point of rein ¬ statement and he appealed accordingly Acting stewards on Mr Birds objections Lord Ebnry and Lord Lurgan LurganThe The stewards of the Jockey Club were of opinion that inasmuch as the objection to Royal Minister was lodged by the owner of a horse which was not qualified to run in the race the objection was not validly made under Rule 169 and that the stewards had no power to adjudicate upon it They there ¬ fore upheld the decision of the stewards annulling their original decision thus leaving Royal Minister as winner of the race The stewards of tho Jockey Club however desired that it should be understood that in their opinion in an ordinary case when stewards have adjudicated upon an objection validly made they have no power to reverse their decision which can only be reconsidered on an appeal They also considered that it would have been advisable that the objection to Postmans Knock should have been decided by the stewards who decided the objec ¬ tion to Royal Minister They withdrew the dis ¬ qualification which attached to Mr Rhodes for hav ¬ ing acted in an official capacity at an unrecognized meeting and which they consider be did through inadvertence and ignorance of the rules rulesNo No 55 Substitution of Horse After Hour of Nam ¬ ing Denied DeniedSaratoga Saratoga July 31 1897 The conditions of the Midsummer Handicap read Starters to pay 50 additional and to be named through the entry box at the usual hour for the closing of entries on the day preceding the race Mr Seagram named Havoc On the day of the race his agent asked per ¬ mission to withdraw Havoc and substitute Con ¬ noisseur noisseurThe The stewards refused to grant permission on the ground that it is in contravention of the conditions of the race Signed SignedM M N Nolan W S Vosburgh VosburghNo No 56 Hour of Naming Starter Horses Not Then Named Allowed to Start StartGravesend Gravesend N Y September 14 IS97 The con ¬ ditions of the Oriental Handicap road Starters to be named by 230 p m on the day preceding thj race On the day of the race Dutch Skater and Sunny Slope neither of which had been named as starters on the day preceding the race were added and started As neither of them was placed there was no protest protestAs As an hour was specified for naming starters a re fu al to name at that hour was equivalent to a declaration as if the conditions had road as they more frequently do declared at that hour The fact that the conditions dcuiandml that starters should be named at a specified time allows no other conclusion than that those not then named were declared Therefore Dutch Skater and Sunny Slope were not qualified to start startNo No 57 Objection Not Made at Proper Time Over ¬ ruled ruledAlexandra Alexandra Park Eng June IS 1SS7 Victoria Plate won by Chatter hud a condition for maiden twoyearolds or threeyearolds and upward that had not won 150 sovs in one race On June 24 Mr Pagct owner of second horse objected to Chatter on the ground that she hart won more than 150 sovs at one time The stewards of the meeting overruled the objection as being too late according to Rule 38 IV but allowed n appeal to the stewards of the Jockey Club The latter continued the decision and at tlie name lime fined K Marsh the trainer of Chatter twentyfive sove ¬ reigns for gross carelessness in not taking ade ¬ quate steps in his own absence to prevent Chatter Pl1inrinnlns after ne na1 discovered she was not qualified qualifiedN N ° IMs nrarfrtfd Horsc AS ° N ° t Registered Horse Horseiniarrflu iniarrflu Kff Felrarv IS 1809 The Freucli lstL FreuclilstL Lavendi e won the TwoYearOld i f wav olJected to on the ground that fn fnTn thatfn ing Tn to Mr ui Rue t i 15 hcjiage The stewards lla 1 llot referred bcu lodsod tho accord matter ¬ m K ° U WV ° d cjae l that as there was no ctrtificute rH rHm t of ago signed by a veterinary surgeon duly qualified she was not entitled to th stakes No 59 Overweight Allowed AllowedChester Chester Eng May 7 1868 Previous to the race for tho All Aged Selling Stakes S Adams the rider of Astracan the winner weighed 116 pounds After the horse had gone to the post it was dis ¬ covered by his trainer that his weight should be 121 pounds and he accordingly sent a fivepound cloth to the starting post without giving the clerk of the scales any notice On returning to scale after the race S Adams drew 121 pounds The owner of the1 second horse claimed tho race The case was submitted to the stewards who decided the race in favor of Astracan AstracanNote Note I find that this ruling was contrary to the rule of 18CS which allowed only two pounds above the weight specified for the horse to carry unless a declaration was made to the Clerk of the scales half an hour before the time fixed for the race In de ¬ fault of such declaration the horse carrying more Uian two pounds over his specified weight was dis ¬ qualified qualifiedNo No 60 The Wishard Forum Case Entrance Money to a Purse Deducted DeductedMorris Morris Park N Y October 22 1895 In the first race Wishards owner claimed seven pounds as a non winner of 400 He had on October 15 won a purse of 500 with 400 to the winner but the stewards granted the allowance on the ground that his en ¬ trance money 15 should be deducted making it 385 In the same race Forums owner claimed seven pounds as a non winner of 400 He had at the winner been awarded a race of 15 each 400 to the winner The stewards granted the al ¬ lowance lowanceNote Note According to the Rules of 1895 Forum was entitled to the allowance but Wishard was not The race Forum had won was not designated a purse but its terms were those of a sweepstakes hence under Rule 78 his entrance money should have been deducted deductedIn In the case of Wishard it was directly the re yerse He had won a race designated on the card as a purse and under Rule 78 his entrance money should not have been deducted Yet both Forum and Wishard were treated on equal terms termsIn In this country a purse has always been desig ¬ nated like the plate of Great Britain and Aus ¬ tralia as a race for money or other prize to which the owners of the horses engaged do not contribute stakes see Rule 1 and the rule 78 of 1893 has always read that in estimating the value of the race entrance money to a purse or entrance money going to the racefund shall not be deducted In the English rules it is not specifically stated but as the rule holds that a plate purse Is one to which the owners do not contribute stakes the rule esti ¬ mating winnings by deducting his own stake or entrance applyThe cannot apply The intent of this timehonored rule Is clear It is based upon the old sporting and equitable prin ¬ ciple that a horse shall not be penalized for having won money he did not receive If Wishards owner did not receive 400 he was entitled to it under the rule as the race was announced as a purse 500 400 to the winner the entrance money went to the race fund Thus as Wishnrd was a winner of 400 he had no claim to the allowance what was paid him cuts no figure in the case caseIn In the revision of the rules in 1896 Rule 78 was amended in regard to entrance money to a purse by striking out the word not and substituting also Under the rules of 1896 Wishard would have been entitled to the allowance allowanceIt It is also a racing principle as old as racing Itself that a horse shall not be penalized except for having won public money Thus a winner of a match or private sweepstakes docs not Incur a penalty In the revision of the rules in 1894 the words were In serted even though money be added to the latter which Is contrary to the practice In all other coon tries It could only be justified by the habit of racing associations offering a goodly sum to bring two or more noted horses together as a gate money attraction No 61 Weighing in Without Martingale Winner Disqualified DisqualifiedCurragh WinnerDisqualified Curragh October 15 1890 Corinthian Plate Glen Art came In first but was disqualified on the ground that his rider weighed in without the mar ¬ tingale and the race was awarded to Wise Chief which came in second secondNo No 62 Complaint Against Jockey for Refusing to Ride Dismissed on the Ground that By Accept ¬ ing Another Jockey the Owner Had Released HimWorcester Him Worcester October 22 1890 Deerhurst Handicap Mr T Stevens Jr reported Bradbury the Jockey to the stewards for refusing to ride Rendezvous after engaging to ride his horses at the meeting The stewards were of opinion that Mr Stevens re ¬ leased Bradbury when he accepted Firilay to ride Rendezvous They therefore exonerated Bradbury and reprimanded Flnlay for accepting the mount on Rendezvous and going away from Worcester with ¬ out giving Mr Stevens an explanation No 63 Objection to Winner for not Declaring Over ¬ weight By Proper Time Objection Overruled Cork Park October 28 1890 Irish Plate won by Maddenstown An objection to the winner on the ground that the declaration of overweight was not made by the proper time was Overruled The de ¬ cision was confirmed oh appeal No 64 Winner Struck Out of Engagement Dis ¬ qualifiedWarwick qualified Warwick Eng September 17 1901 Emscote Twoyearsold plate Mr Newtons Friary Court first Mr Cunliffes White Lily colt second Mr J R Kecnes Slipper disqualified Slipper disqualifiedSlipper finished first On the day after the race the owner of Friary Court lodged an objection to Slipper on the ground that she was not qualified having been struck out of all engagements previous to the race The stewards disqualified Slipper and awarded the race to Friary Court No 65 Winner Disqualified for Jostling Another Race Being Run During the Interval At Doncaster September Meeting 1869 objections being made to Argylc winner of the Badminton Handicap for swerving Into Vagabond the stewards Admiral Rous and Mr M H Lowthcr heard the case after the running of the race following that for the Badminton Handicap and disqualified the winner winnerNo No 66 Placing Judges Decision Reversed at Sug ¬ gestion of Stewards StewardsWashington Washington D C December 3 1903 In the fifth race of the day the judges placed Bill Curtis second and Magic Flute third The judges however upon receiving word from the stewards that In their opinion Magic Flute had finished second construed it as an order from the stewards and placed Magic Flute second secondNo No 67 Placing Judges Decision Reversed with Con ¬ sent of Stewards StewardsEpsom Epsom Eng June 1 1859 Derby Stakes Mus jid won In the hrst instance the judge placed Ticket of Leave second but the owner of Marion ¬ ette claimed second place and the judge was after ¬ ward convinced that he had made a mistake The question was heard on Friday after the race for the Oaks when the placing of the horses was altered by authority of the stewards and the following no ¬ tice was published f fThe The stewards hereby declare Marionette to be the second horse in the Derby Stakes and that Ticket of Leave was placed second by mistake Signed SignedBeaufort Beaufort H J Rons i A Heathcotc HeathcotcC C H Carew June 3 1859 1859No No OS Decision of Judges Protested The Stewards StewardsDeny Deny Their Power to Reverse Decision of Judge JudgeCarlisle Carlisle July 3 1888 Cumberland Plate won by Queens Counsel On behalf of Sir R Jardlne Jardlneowner owner of Mosspaul the second borse Mr C J JCunningham Cunningham judgesdecision lodged a protest against the judges decision and this was submitted to the stewards stewardswho who subsequently Issued the following followingThe The stewards have no power to alter the decision of the judge but after inspecting the judges box and observing the angle at which it Is situated they agree with the judges decision decisionW W Parker Chairman No 69 Objection to Judges Decision Overruled OverruledEpsom Epsom England May 27 1S91 After Cornlche had won the Mickleham Stakes the owner of Blakosley the second horse objected to the judges decision but the judge upheld it and the stewards dismissed the objection No 70 Horses Withdrawn Not under Starters StartersOrders Orders Newmarket October 14 1891 Cordelier and Axiom were weighted for the Autumn Handicap but a heavy storm came on while the horses were on the way to the post and Cordelier and Axiom bolted falling over the rails Their numbers were withdrawn and they were not under the starters orders AH the jockeys except Burnett drew two pounds overweight but were passed byorder of the stewards No 71 Jockey Falls After PassinzPost Docs Not NotWeigh Weigh in Disqualified Leicester England April 2 1832 In High ParK Plate the rider of Bransdalc broSc a stirrup leather and fell after the horse had pasfoed the post Being seriosly injured the rider did liot weigh In Brans dale was therefore disqualified but no blame was attached to his rider by thf stewards No 72 Disqualification TClnner In Forfeit List ListBaldoyle Baldoyle Dublin April6 18S6 Stewards Plate won by Doepdale Glency finished first but was disqualified for being in the Forfeit List and the race awarded to Deepdale which caine in second No 73 Objection Distance of Race Course Meas ¬ ured Race Run Over OverNorthampton Northampton EnglaudA March 30 18S7 Great Northamptonshire Stake Ln by Middlethorpo Mid dlcthorpe came in first Valentine second Postscript third but an objection was made to the race on the ground that the proper distance had been exceeded and as the stewards were in doubt as to whether such was the case they ordered the course to bo measured when it was found that all the horses had run 250 yards more than the proper distance They therefore ordered the race to be run over again Five of the horses did not go to the post the second time Middlethorpe won Postscript sec ¬ ond Sandpiper third F Fitton rode Throne the first time at six stone The second time G Chal loner rode Throne at five stone twelve pounds claim ¬ ing an apprentice allowance of five pounds No 74 Handicap Weights Altered After Date of Publication PublicationManchester Manchester England November 24 1888 Man ¬ chester November Handicap Before the race Mr WInn the owner of Lady Roaebery objected to his mare carrying ten pounds penalty for having won the Liverpool Cup and the stewards decided that as the weights for the Manchester November Handi ¬ cap though announced as published earlier had been altered after the race for the Liverpool Cup the mare should not carry a penalty for winning that race No 75 Horse Pulled Up Too Soon SoonNewmarket Newmarket England October 9 1SSS Flying Welter Handicap Webb the rider of Southill was called before the stewards who were under the im ¬ pression that he had Bulled up his horse before his chance of winning was hopeless After hearing his explanation and other evidence the stewards completely exonerated him himNo No 76 Betting Case Horse Withdrawn After Weighing Bets Stand StandSt St Louis Mo June 12 1SS6 Mr Ed Corrigana horse Irish Pat was entered for a race and bis Jockey weighed out when his owner came to the judges and asked permission rto withdraw the horse as he was suffering from colic ThexJiorsc was led before the judges who permitted his withdrawal The question of the bets arising the judges after the race decided that all auction pools sold on Irish Pat were off but that all bets made In the books stood stoodNote Note The rules of betting then recognized by tho Turf Congress read readEvery Every horse that is weighed out Is a starter and shall be liable for bis whole stake But a horse Is not a starter for the decision of bets until he is at the starting post and in the hands of the theIrish Irish Pat had weighed out but he had not gone to the post hence he was not a starter for the decision of bets The strangest part of it is that only a few weeks before this a similar case hail occurred at Latqnia The horse Grey Clond was entered for a race his jockey had weighed out when the borse was found to be very ill and by per ¬ mission of the judges he was withdrawn The judges decided that under the rule all money bet upon him either in pools or books on the day o the ra should be returned returnedPrior Prior to 1886 the Turf Congress rule read Every horse that is weighed out Is a starter and shall be liable for his whole stake stakeNothing Nothing was said about bets but in the Latonia autumn meeting of 1885 Aretino was nominated for a race and his jockey had weighed out but the horse was taken with colic the judges permitted his withdrawal and decided that all money bet on the day of the race should be returned No 77 Betting Case Horse Weighed Out but Withdrawn Bets Stand StandMonmoulh Monmoulh Park July 29 1884 Mr Withers filly by Ventilator Nina weighed out for a free handicap for twoyearolds and started from the paddock for the post but before reaching that point she bolted throwing her rider and escaping leaped the outside rails Being somewhat scratched and bruised sbe was by permission of the judges with ¬ drawn drawnThe The question of the disposal of bets made on the Nina filly being submitted the judges decided they were lost lostNote Note The Rules of Betting then in use at Mon m on th Park read When the riders of any horses brought out to run for arfjr race are called upon by the starter to take their places all bets respecting such horses shall be play or pay payAs As the rider of the Nina filly had not been called upon to take his place the decision was clearly wrong and one of the judges admitted as much shortly after afterNo No 78 Wrong Course All But One Disqualified Horse Adjudged Winner Although Not Placed PlacedWorcester Worcester July 14 1891 Parkfield Selling Welter Plate Cylindrical came in first The owner of Catacol objected to all the other horses on the ground that they had gone the wrong course The stewards found that only Cataccl had gone the right course and although he was not placed by the judge awarded the race to him An application to have the matter referred to the stewards of the Jockey Club was made by the trainer of Cylindrical and refused Catacol was bought in for 125 guineas No 79 Horses Number Not Hoisted with Others Hoisted Later LaterLiverpool Liverpool July 22 1891 Members Selling Handi ¬ cap On account of the accident to J Osbornc u the previous race Dainty Davys numl er was not hoisted at the same tune as the others but the stewards allowed it to be put up afterwards No SO Crossing Winner Disqualified DisqualifiedDerby Derby Eng September 2 1891 For the Har ¬ rington Stakes the Mother Superior colt finished first beating Earl of Annandaic Both were ob ¬ jected to by the trainer of the third horse on the ground of a cross The stewards disqualified the Mother Superior colt and awarded the race to Earl of Annandaic AnnandaicNo No 81 Objection to Winner Not Wearing Blink ¬ ers After Weighing Out with Them Overruled OverruledNewmarket Newmarket October 1 1891 After the race for the Double Trial Plate won by Mr A B Carrs Claughton an objection to the winner on the ground that he did not wear blinkers after Griffith had weighed out with them was overruled No 82 Declaration to Win Winning with Another Horse HorseCurragh Curragh Ireland October 0 1891 In the race for the Flying Plate Mr T G Gordon started two horses Cry Help and Maidstone declaring to win with Maidstone and it having appeared to the stew ¬ ards that she could have won instead of Cry Help which did win The Postman and Maidstone finish ¬ ing second and third they called upon Mr Gordon and Blake the jockey to explain the matter Their explanation was considered satisfactory No S3 Neglect to Weigh In After Winning a Place Horse Fell Disqualified DisqualifiedBath Bath Engj May 13 1S90 For the Beaufort Handicap won by Ivanhoe Quebec finished second but collided with a policeman astride before reach ¬ ing the winning post and fell and as his Jockey did not weigh in he was disqualified and the place awarded to Maxim MaximNo No 84 Horse Weighed Out For Not Found Num ¬ ber Taken Down DownLewes Lewes November 6 1891 Mile Selling Plate Mr Gubbins Garland three years Mr Lushingtonl was weighed for and his number put up but the horse could not be found and his number was taken down by consent of the stewards No DisqualifiedCurragh 85 Boring and Jostling Winner Disqualified Curragh Ireland October 22 1881 For tho Lein stcr Plate won by Master George Euston finished nrst by a neck but was disqualified on the ground of boring and jostling and the race awarded to Master George which finished second No 86 Winner Disqualified for Boring BoringYork York August 26 1890 Lonsdale Stakes M Mc ¬ Gregor came in first by a head but was disqualified on the ground of boring and the race was awarded to Eaglesham EagleshamNo No withDrawing 87 Starting Horse Placed on the Outside with Drawing Place PlaceNewmarket Newmarket September 23 1890 Visitors Plate With the sanction of the stewards Red Cherry waa allowed to be placed on the outside at the start and accordingly a lot was riot drawn for the colt under Rule 140