RUINED TRAINER

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 30, 5 February 1932, Page 3

RUINED TRAINER

BIG LIBEL ACTION

£16,000 DAMAGES

WARNING OFF NOTICE

(From "The Post's" Representative.)

LONDON, 3rd December.

The libel action brought by Mr. Charles Chapman, tho trainer, against the Jockey Club and other defendants, ended in the High Court on the third day, when tho jury awarded the plaintiff £10,000 damages.

For the defendants it was intimated that an appeal would bo lodged, but stay of execution was -nly granted conditional on the defendants paying Mr. Chapman £500, the sum not to be returned iv any event.

The cass came before Mr, Justice Horridgc and a special jury. \U\ Chapman claimed damages against Lord Ellesmere, Lord Harewood, and Lord Itoscbery, stewards of the Jockey Club, Messrs. Weatherby and Sons, of Cavendish Square, London, ;.nd "The Times" newspaper. In respect of tho publication of a decision of tile Jockey Club stewwards warning him off Newmarket Heath and disqualifying Don Pat, which ho had trained, for the Bedt'ont Highwcight Handicap at the Kempton Park Summer Meeting in 1930. He complained that the publication had injured him iv his character, credit, and reputation on the Turf. The defence was a. pica, of privilogo and justification. Sir Patrick Hastings; K.C., opening tho case for Mr. Chapman, described it as "one of the most serious libels that one could possibly imagine." In 1930 tho stewards of the Jockey Club, he said, warned Mr. Chapman off the course. They published what they had done in a manner which was one of the essential ingredients of the case. Mr. Chapman was a young man of the highest character. Ho had now been ruined. On "Oth September, 1930, the stewards of thi; Jockey Club broadcast to the world by communicating with all the news distributing centres certain words which contained tho alleged libel. Sir Patrick Hastings then read tho publication complained of. WORDS COMPLAINED OF. It was as follows:—"The actingstewards of the Kempton Park Second Summer Meeting, Major Mark Weyland, Sir William Cooke, and tho Hon. T. Egerton, mot on 13th. September to receive the result of the examination which they had ordered to be made of Don Pat after winning the Bedfont Highweight Handicap. Having interviewed Mr. Eowe, owner of Don Pat, and O. Chapman, the trainer, they referred tho case to the stewards of the Jockey Club. The stewards of the Jockey G'luo—Lord EUesnnere acting for Lord Zetland—after further investigation, satisfied themselves that a drug had been administered to the horse for the purpose of the race in question. They disqualified tho horse for this race and for all future races under their rules, and warned C. Chapman, the trainer of the horse, ofi Newmarket Heath." "I suggest," continued Sir Patrick, "that these words can only mean that Mr. Chapman was warned off the course for administering a drug to Don Pat. The defence is justification and privilege, but there is no suggestion by any of the defendants that the words are true, if what I say is their only meaning is correct." Sir Patrick said thero was no suggestion that Mr. Chapman was in any way a party to giving drugs to the horse. After the race at Kempton Park the veterinary surgeon scraped froth off the horse for the purpose of analysis, and a month later, at the inquiry held by the stewards of Kempton Park, evidence was given by the veterinary surgeon to the effect that he had found some traces of a drug. "What Messrs. \Voatherby did after the stewards' inquiry was to 'ring up the Press of ti.e world.' 'We have something for you,' they said, and there was handed out to tho- news agencies the statement that the stewards oi. the Jockey Club had satisfied themselves that a drug had been administered to Don Pat, and that Mr. Chapman had been warned off." WORKING AS A GROOM. Mr. Chapman, in evidence, said that after the meeting of the stewards of the Jockey Club he told Lord Eosebery that he thought the decision was most unjust and asked that the matter might bo adjourned so that extensive inquiries could be made in the meantime with a view to finding out who doped Don Pat. Lord Kosebery's reply was that that could not be done. Sir Patrick Hastings: "Did you offer a reward, of £500 to find out who doped the horae?"—"Yes." "Since you ceased training how have you lived?"—"l have been employed as groom and chauffeur for the last fourteen months with Captain Hubbard." '•If it had not been for assistance from your friends would you have been able to bring this action!"—" Certainly not." * Cross-examined by Mr. Norman Birkett, K.C., Mr. Chapman agreed that ■Don Pat was heavily doped. "The stewards of tho Jockey Club desired to give you the fullest opportunity of dealing with the whole of the case?"—" Yes, I should say so, but they did not make it quite clear about procedure." Mr. Birkett: "It is common knowledge in the racing world, is it not, that one of the things to be guarded against most zealously is doping?" "Absolutely," was the reply. Captain Gerald Hubbard, agent to the Duke of Eichmond and Gordon, and clerk to the course at Goodwood, said that after the stewards had called Mr. Chapman, in to tell him the result of their inquiry he told them he thought an injustice had been, done to Mr. Chapman. Mr. Stuart Bevan, K.C., on behalf of "The Times," submitted that whether the wording of the communication to the news agencies was right or wrong, and whether the wording invited a different meaning from that which the stewards put on their decision, it did not matter as far as "Tho Times" was concerned. He could produce evidence to show that during tho last thirty years public interest in racing had increased considerably. Mr. Justice Horridgc: "Do you include in the public all the colonial and foreign readers, and all tho clergy to which 'The Times' goes?" "The public generally," replied Mr. Bcvan. PURITY OF THE TURF. Lord Eosebery then gave evidence. Tie said he was senior steward of the Jockey Club, and presided at the inquiry on 29th September, 1930. The club took a grave view of any malpractice) on the Turf; it was their duty to keep the Turf as pure as possible. The stewards took the view that a trainer was absolutely responsible for tho horse under his care unless he could prove to their satisfaction that he was not responsible. They sought at the inquiry to narrow down the persons who had access to Don Pat. The stewards took the view that Mr. Chapman was absolutely responsible for his servants' acts.

Mr. Birkett: "Was there any ground at any lime for supposing that the stewards were hostile to Sir. Chapman'"

Lord Eosebery: "None at all. SpeakIng for njjselfj I always hope jye shall

be able to find any person appearing before us innocent. Mr. Chapman had the fullest opportunity of explaining his case At the inquiry, and could call any witness he desired. A letter in which the Duke of Eichmond and Gordon gave Mr. Chapman the highest character was placed before tho stewards, and received their consideration."

Lord .Rosebery stated that he was not prepared to answer whether Mr. Chapman, hud been punished enough. Sir Patrick Hastings: "In your view, can he ever purge his offence?" — "Yes."

Asked what Mr. Chapman could do to "purge his offence," Lord Rosebery said that next spring he would havo the opportunity of applying 1.0 the stewards of the Jockey Club for a licence, and his case would be considered then.

Sir Patrick: ".If you were considering his case next spring, would you think he had purged his offence?"— "Surely I should bo entitled to wait, until next spring before I consider it."

lie-examined, Lord Kosebevy said Unit I it' and when Mr. Chapman applied for a trainer's licence) the request would be considered dispassionately by the stewards. The ivarning-off notice was worded to make it clear that Mr. Chapman was not warned off because the stewards alleged that he doped, the horse, but for another reason. It never occurred to the stewards that the position had not been made clear. A TIRM HAND. Lord Hare-wood, in evidence, said that from start to finish of the inquiryhe had no feeing of: auy kind against Mr. Chapman. He agreed that it was the duty of the stewards to keep racing pure. Cross-examined, Lord Harcwood said that ho agreed with the view of the other stewards that the notice which the stewards seDt to the Press conveyed the impression that Mr. Chapman had been warned off only because he had been guilty of grave dereliction, of duty. Sir Patrick Hastings: "If you liad learned that what you had sent out to the public was being universally misconstrued, you would have been anxious to put it right!"—"l did put it right wherever I found that it was misconstrued." "You would be anxious to put it right?"—" Yes." Lord Ellesmero said that the onlymotive which actuated him throughout the inquiry was to find out who had administered the dope to Bon Pat. Ho never had, any feeling against Mr. Chapman. ■ . In cross-examination, Lord Ellesmere said that he did not remember congratulating himself on the decision in Mr. Chapman's case. ' Sir Patrick Hastings: "Did you make a speech at the Giinerack dinuer in November, 1930, in which you said that doping horses was a horrible practice which had to be stopped?" —"Yes." "Did you go on to say that you congratulated the Jockey Club stewards on the firm way in which they . had dealt with the pernicious evil of doping?"—"l did." "Included in that firm way of dealing with the evil was the warning off of Mr. Chapman? s.'—"Not particularly." CASE FOR THE "TIMES." Mi-. Bevan, for the "Times," said that anyone who had come into Court during the hearing of the case would havo thought that the jury were being asked to inquire into the Tightness of the decision of the stewards of the Jockey Club. All sorts of points had been raised as to whether Mr. Chapman had had a fair hearing, whether the stewards should have postponed their decision, and so on. Those matters had nothing in the world to do with the claim which Mr. Chapman made against the "Times." The "Times" came on the scene for the first time when it published an article which was substantially a reproduction of the official statement of the stewards of the Jockey Club. It may not have been the legal duty of the "Times" to publish tho statement, but one could not help wondering what view the readers of tho "Times" would have taken of their favourite newspaper if a matter of such importance had been omitted from its racing columns. "With regard to tho meaning of the stewards' notice, Mr. Chapman was twice mentioned, in it as the trainer of the horse, ana it was plain that Mr. Chapman had been dealt with as a person who had the responsibility of a trainer, and not as the perpetrator of tho doping, in which case the stewards would have said so in terms. If Mr. Chapman had suffered social and professional discredit and had lost his livelihood as a trainer, that had occurred, not because of the publication of the stewards' statement in the "Times," but by the decision of the stewards, which, had already been given, and by that decision alone. Very moderate damages, thereforo, if any, should be awarded in respect of the publication in the "Times." Sir Patrick Hastings said that tho stewards' notice was composed of simple English words which could only mean that Mr. Chapman had been warned off the Turf for doping a racehorse. What puzzled him (counsel) was that the stewards seriously asked the jury to say that they intended the notice to mean something else. It was impossible to imagine a graver injury than the stewards had done to Mr. Chapman. He had, been socially and financially ruined. No effort had been made by either of the three defendants to ameliorate his condition, although certainly one of them, Lord Bosebery, had been asked to make it clear to the public that Mr. Chapman had been warned off for negligence and not for doping. THE SUMMING-UP. Mr. Justice Herridge, in. summing-up, said that it did not matter what the stewards of- the Jockey Club intended their notice to mean. The test was what a reasonably-minded person would say that it meant. In assessing tho damages the jury could bear in mind tho conduct of the stewards in the action. The "Times" spread its publication all over the civilised world. His Lordship left the following questions to the jury, whose answers aro appended:— "Were the words complained of true in. their ordinary meaning?"—" No." "Did those words mean that Mr. Chapman was a party to tho actual doping of Don Pat?"—" Yes." "Were the words published by the 'Times' true in their ordinary meaning?"—" No." "Did those words mean that Mr. Chapman was a party to the actual doping of Don Pat?"—" Yes." "Damages.—(a) In respect of tho publication by the stewards to tho Press agencies!"—"£3ooo." "(b) In respect of the publication to and by the 'Times?'—"£3ooo." "(c) In respect of tho publication in the 'Kacing Calendar?'—"£lo,ooo." Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs, against Lord Ellesmere, Lord Harewood, Lord Itosebery, and Messrs, Weatherby and Sons for £13,000, and against all tho defendants for a further £3000.

A slay of execution was granted pending an appeal on condition of tho payment of £.500 to Mr. Chapman, not to be returned in any event.