THE PEERESS CASE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VIII, Issue 168, 14 July 1873, Page 2

THE PEERESS CASE.

It has beeu ruled by Admiral Rous (hat " there ia no racing law in Europe to justify the Canterbury Jockey Club in disqualifying Peeress," aud no one will oare to question that veteran sportsman's decision, but a new light has been thrown upou tho question by a letter addressed by Mr Walters to the CJ.J.C. which appears in fhe Australasian of June 28, after a perusal of which the general verdict will most unroistakeably be in favor of the action taken by the Club, whether such was in accordance with racing law, or not, Without further comment we will give the letter together with some few remarks made by the Australasian, aud by its sporting correspondent. That journal says : — " We have lately received from the secretary of tho Canterbury Jockey Club copies of evidence taken, and correspondence that pa._&ed, referring to the case of Peeress, and we purpose to offer a brief resume of tbe same. We are requested by the CJ C. not to publish the evidence and correspondence, which wo much regret, as otherwise we should certainly bave done so. We Bball, however, venture to publish one letter of Mr Walters to the C.J.C., and having done so, give a resume of the facts and dateß connected with the scratching of Peeress." [Here follows a brief sketch of. the facts as they are already known to the public]. "It was not until the general half-yearly meeting "of the club, held on the 19th of May last, that the full particulars respect-

Fnr remaindtr of news see fourth page,

ing the sale, purchase, and scratching of Peeress were laid before the club, the correctness of which was subsequently confirmed by a letter addressed to the C.J.C. by Mr Walters. This is the letter, the responsibility of publishing which in full 'we must take upon ourselves, as'we consider that it contains the key to the whole Peeress case" : — (Copy). " Christchurch, 20th May, 1873. " To the Canterbury Jockey Club. " Gentlemen, — I write to ask yon to extend clemency to me by relieving my mare, Peeress, from the disqualification under which she is now laboring. "Iv order to induce you to treat me with leniency, I can show that, if I acted in a wrong manner, others were more guilty tban myself, whereas I am the only one who has been punished. "A bookmaker came to me a few days before the races, and aßked whether I would join with himself and others in the purchase of Peeress from Mr Redwood. I consented, and after an interview on Monday, Noveoaber 4th, by appointment between myself, three bookmakers, and Mr Redwood, the following arrangement was come to and carried out on Tuesday morning, November the sth. " The bookmakers paid Mr Redwood five hundred pounds (£500) in cash. I made up the difference of the price of eight hundred pounds (£800) by an acceptance at 14 days for three hundred pounds (£300). This acceptance was endorsed by the bookmakers, and handed to Mr Redwood. The bookmakers received an acknowledgment of lhe payment of five hundred pounds (£500), which was held by them. "Tbe mare was officially "scratched the same night, and became my property by subsequent arrangement, ou ray retiring the acceptance for £300. " I now see the wrong position in which I unthinkingly placed myself, and regret having put myself in a position which enabled certain parties to defraud the public. "I now ask your kind consideration of my case, saying at the same time that I am not induced by any promise from yourselves to make this statement. " lam, gentlemen, v Yours obediently, "Wm. Walters." " We cannot see that Mr Walters oan have any objection to his letter being published. He says he regrets having placed himself in a position which enabled certain parties to defraud the public. If he- has any spark of proper feeling about him, and honesty, we should think he does bitterly regret it. Legitimate bookmaking is one thing. Buying a horse on tbe eve" of a race for the purpose of scratching, thereby (quoting Mr Walters's own words) "enabling certain persons io defraud the public," is another. The one may be honestly conducted j tbat the other should be an honest transaction i 3 impossible. In reply to Mr Walters's letter, the C.J.C, passed the following resolution: — "After a revision of all the circumstances of the case, the C.J.C. do not consider themselves justified in removing the disqualification of Peeress." The sporting correspondent says : — " It ■will be remembered that some short time ago a Mr Walters was disqualified on the New Zealand turf for some questionable transaction in connexion with the purchase of Mr Redwood's, mare Peeress. At the time it was thought that the club had acted in an arbitrary manner, but since then I have been favored with a perusal of the whole of the proceedings, including the correspondence that passed between the club and Mr. Walters, and from the latter's own admission there can be no doubt that the stewards were perfectly justified in the course they took, and it is a great pity indeed that they did not extend their displeasure to three or four others who were mixed up in the transaction. Mr Walters was very justly dealt with, although the stewards did not, perhaps, act strictly in accordance with racing law; and if some of our stewards would go outside of the beaten track, and make a few similar examples, we should hear less of turf swindles." The following letter has been received from Sydney by the Canterbury Jockey Club : — "Australasian Jockey Club, Sydney, June 17, 1873. E. G. Griffiths, Esq, Honorary Secretary Canterbury Jockey Club, Christchurch. Dear Sir, — In reply to your letters respecting the disqualification of Peerese, the last of which bears date March 28, I have the honor to inform you tbat this club has adopted your ruling in the matter and disqualifies tbe said mare for ever. — Yours, faithfully, F. S. Clibborn, Secretary, A. J.C. By order of the Committee A.J.C."