ENGLISH TURF SCANDAL

Hokitika Guardian, 29 April 1922, Page 4

ENGLISH TURF SCANDAL

CAPTAIN PEEL IN COURT. A GRUESOME INTERLUDE IN TILE PROCEEDINGS. SENTENCE ON A MURDERER. LONDON, March 8. Sensation followed sensation at the Old Bailey when Captain Owen Peel whose mother won the Grand National with Poethlyn—and Mrs Peel . daughter of Sir Robert Jardine, the owner of many racehorses—were plated , on• their trial on the charge of obtaining money from bookmakers by forging the time of telegrams backing Paragon for the Duke of York Stakes last October. There was astonishment when Laptain Peel pleaded “Guilty.” His wife pleaded “Not Guilty. Those who crowded the court had hardly hushed from their gasp of surprise at Captain Peel’s plea when the young couple, the central figures of the now famous “Telegram Rets Case” were removed from the dock, and there stepped into it an ashen-grey elderly man between warders. He was Keeling. the murderer of a woman in Tottenham.

Races blanched. More than one woman made an attempt to reach the door as the' dreaded black cap was placed by an usher on the judge’s head. There was a dramatic silence as he sentenced the man to death. In a moment the murderer, “lor whom there appeared no hope in this world,” disappeared below, and the court welcomed the reappearance of the young and almost debonair couple with a sigh of relief. Within twenty minutes—after a short, softly-spoken argument between Sir Charles Gill, K.C. (for the pioseeut.ion), and the Judge; a pronouncement by the Judge that he would hear all the evidence; and. the granting of an adjournment applied for by Sir Henry Curtis Bennett, K.C'., —Captain Peel was taken (town the same stairs to Urn cells to await his sentence, and Mrs Peel, held gently from her husband by a wardress and overcome with emotion, was granted bail in her own recognisances of fCIOQO to stand trial with her husband at the appointed time. “Take mo away from this,” sue sobbed to the friends who supported

ALLEGATION'S AGAINST MRS PE.EL When the ease was before the magisrnte at Row street, Mr Harold Pearce, for the Postmaster-General, alleged that Captain and Mrs Peel obtained noney from bookmakers by means of ■urged telegrams sent from Avon l)asctT Post (Mfiee alter the horse Paragon missed the winning post in the Duke ol York Slakes at Kcmpton Park on October S!h. 102 !. It was then ail-'ged that Mrs I’eci obtained the name of the winner wnile telephoning from the post office to n stockbroker f iend, Mr Leslie Dow, in |,is London Club, and that she communicated this information to her husband, who prevailed on tin? elderly ostiiiaster to mark the telegrams as rinded in at n.m.. before the start of the race. Captain . and Mrs Peel then denied the charge. There were live women on the jury ,vl e n Captain and Mrs Peel surrenderM to their bail and entered the large roomy dock. Mrs Peel was dressed in a blue costume with furs and a large red hat, and Captain Peel was wearing it blue serge suit. QUESTION OF COERCION. Sir .diaries Gill, K.C., for the prosecution, appeared somewhat, taken aback by the contradictory pleas, and vas quickly*' on Ids feet, asking Mi Justice Darling to give a ruling on the law with regard to husband and wile tnd He question of “coercion. ’ “It will be noticed,” lie said, “that in the indictment there is. no charge ol onspiiaey, because, as the law stands it present, a husband and wife cannot conspire together to-commit a ciiminal offence. There is authority for saying that where a husband and wife act together to commit an offence there is presumption that the wife acts under the coercion of her husband. In such cases the wife is entitled to an acquittal, hut this may he rebutted by evidence that the wife is the instigator ol the act, or that the husband is incapable of coercing her as being the weaker of the two.” Mr Justice Darling: M omen then were not nearly so independent as they are now. The law was founded on the knowledge that husbands subjected their wives to physical violence. A man, according to the old law, might heat his wife so long as lie used a stick no thicker than his thumb. Sir Charles Gill then explained that the offence was the uttering of forged telegrams. Captain Peel sent the telegrams, and the instructions as fo coding came from him. The stytcnnpls in regard thereto were made by the husband in the absence of his wife. “MUST PROCEED.” Mr Justice Darling, after further argument, in which ho pointed out that the control of a husband over the wife was to a large extent abolished, declined to say that the doctrine applied to this ease, and added! “1 shall hold that the ease must proceed.” Sir Henry C'urtis Bennett, K.C.: Do I understand that the indictment against Mrs Peel must proceed ? Mr Justice Darling: Certainly. Sir Henry Curtis Bennett, K.C., then successfully applied for an adjournment until after the trial of the Hoolev ease, and secured the release of Mrs Peel on bail. Mr Justice Darling refused to grant hail for Captain Peel. “It is notusual,” he said, “to grant bail lor a person pleading guilty. I do not see that there can lie any hardship. Look whai he lias, pleaded guilty to!’ It. has since beep stated by cablegram that Mrs Peel was acquitted on the charges preferred against her, Mr Justice Raiding upholding the doctrine that when a woman committed a crime like this in the physical presence of hey hushaiu] the ]a\y prescribed that she acted njujer this coercion. Captain Peel was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.