THE CANTERBURY JOCKEY CLUB AND THE DISQUALIFICATION OF MR. REDWOOD'S MARE PEERESS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 114, 13 May 1873, Page 4

THE CANTERBURY JOCKEY CLUB AND THE DISQUALIFICATION OF MR. REDWOOD'S MARE PEERESS.

„.:,,; (Australasian) In onr last number we published the correspondence that passed between the Canterbury Jockey Club and the A. J. C. of Sydney' respecting* the disqualification of Mr Redwood's mare Peeress. The case was briefly and clearly stated by the committee of the Canterbury Jockey Club. At a largely attended meeting it was unanimously agreed that the following , facts were clearly proved — "That Mr Walters, in confederation with certain bookmakers who had. their books full against Peeress, bad purchased and afterwards scratched the mare, in accordance with a pre-arranged scheme for milking the public ; that the mare was perfectly well aod fit at the time she was scratched ; that she was not scratched until the public suspected the confederacy and refused to put more money on her ; and that, between the purchase and its being allowed to transpire, the confederates had operated freely against her." Id plain English, a gigantic swindle was successfully carried, out by Mr Walters, in confederation with certain bookmakers. Of Mr Walters we know nothing whatever, but Mr Redwood's name is familiar to all who know anything of colonial racipg, and he was always gladly welcomed to this colony, to which he has been a frequent visitor. Mr Redwood must have been aware that Peeress was a favorite for the Cauterbuiy Cup aud had been heavily backed, and we cannot understand how he, a gentleman of character on the turf, came to part with her just before a race for which she was a great favorite without having his suspicions aroused that all was not square and above board. Mr Walters* game is easy to understand; it is a very old and common one, that has beeu played frequently and successfully in this colony many a time, and the committee of the C.J.C. must have had very conclusive evidence before them to have written in the manner they did to the A.J.C., at Sydney. On the Victorian turf there is no rule that would reach any person guilty of doing what Mr Walters did, except rule 50, which gives the stewards power to disqualify, for any period they may think fit, any person "guilty of dishonest practices." Mr. Walters richly deserved expulsion from : every racecourse in New Zealand, but it is no easy matter generally to obtain evidence that shall be conclusive in such cases. It is always extremely difficult to connect the parties who have been . instrumental in performing that delicate but too frequent operation, " milking the public." We have never been made conversant with the whole facts of the case, so we can only go by the decisive action of the Canterbury stewards, and conclude that the chain of evidence to convict Mr Walters was complete. Why then, may we ask, was not Mr Walters disqualified for ever, as well as Peeress, and warned off tbe Canterbury course? In alluding to this case, we would draw more particular attentior to the concluding portion orthe secretary of the Canterbury Jockey Club's letter, in which it is said that " the stewards are not aware that any precedent exists for the action ' they have taken in this case, but; the club have resolved " with or without precedent, to stop with a firm hand all fraudulent practices on the Canterbury turf." This declaration will be perused with satisfaction and gladness by every one who wishes racing to flourish as a sport and amusement, and a means of improving and keeping up the breed of horses. The Canterbury Jockey i Club is a turf institution that may be regarded as equal, if not superior, to any similar, body in the Australasian colonies. The members of the club are many of them, belonging to some of the first families in the old of position and character. They are gentlemen more likdly.tOj.be influenced by the good old

notions of what is atnctly'Hpniorable, and, straightforward on the turf than by. mere racing law and custom, and in' this case it is evident that they were not particular as regards precedent or apprehensive from want of precentd. Peeress had been bought for the purpose of being scratched. She had been laid against by some bookmakers as ify*to use the elegant language, of ihe ring, '.'a regular stiff "'an," and the public, those who backed her on, tbe faith of her quality and Mr Redwood's good name, were robbed of their money. The evidence was conclusive to them, so they acted as honest men would do, and disqualified the mare. The Canterbury stewards are to bs commended for their action in the Peeress case. We wish the A.J.C. could have seen their way to endorse the sentence passed by the Canterbury club; but in any. case, the latter have set an example that must bear good fruit in New Zealand, and possibly : in this colony, and we wish that we could have, have had to report similar emphatic language on the part of the -committee of another leading turf club, in this colony, "that they i bad resolved, either with or without precedent, to stop with a firm hand all fraudulent practices on the turf." A firm hand can alone put down fraudulent practices, and we congratulate the Canterbury Jockey Club on their having both the firm hand and the strong will to guide it, . "with or without precedent." The same spirit should actuate all turf clubs in New Zealand and elsewhere. ' -»■•-