PRINCE HUMPHREY CASE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 678, 1 June 1929, Page 10

PRINCE HUMPHREY CASE

FURTHER COMPLICATIONS ‘‘The disclosures from New Zealand that Prince Humphrey has been clipped sufficiently to show that his brands arc inverted V over B on the near shoulder and 5 over 136 on the near thigh, indicate that Mr. A. Lodden Xuille, keeper of the Australian Stud Book, has not rested in his task of establishing the identity of the horse,” says the Sydney “Morning Herald.” '“Prince Humphrey was recently' declared by the ‘Herald’ to be by Duke Humphrey’ from Princess Hazel, whereas he won the A.J.C. Derby, described as being

by Duke Humphrey from Sheniw. Princess —a breeding that belongs ♦ Cragsman, who has not yet worace. The disclosures of Prince 3IL 1 phrey’s brands indicates the sound*!: of the challenge to the horse’s reSmf! pedigree. “No mention was made of this tnat ter in tho report of the meeting 0 f committee of the Australian JocvlCiub on May 23. but it is probable tw Mr. Yu tile's investigations will be com pleted within the next fortnight. It J difficult to foresee the probable actio* of tho committee should the report as is expected, establish Prince Humphrtr to be by Duke Humphrey from Prince*s Hazel. Obviously* he must be re-rezU tered. The misdescription of a hone in such circumstances would not necessarily lead to his disqualification ir a race. “An important point, however, is tha* no Princess Hazel colt was ever entered for the A.J.O. Derby of 1928. and tho question of whether a horse not actually- entered for a race could nevertheless ‘win’ is a feature of this bu*i. ness which may call for a ruling. For the Derby* of that y*ear two colts by Duke Humphrey were entered. One of these was from Shepherd Princess, in the nomination of Mr. C. G. Macindoe, but when the entry* was made the name of the horse was not registered. Thus, no ‘Prince Humphrey’ was nominated. The other Duke Humphrey nomination was Roy*al Brew, a colt from Maltrjss. This colt, up to the time he was weaaed and branded, bore striking resemblance to the Princess Hazel colt. “The Australian Jockey Club is not concerned with stake money once :t is paid over, but unless some alteration is made in the official record of ths 1928 Derby it would appear that ths register will show as the winner a horss that technically was not entered. Ths fact remains, however, that Mr. Macindoe had a colt which he desired t» enter in the A.J.C. Derby, which waj entered, and which won the race” It is still possible that although ths brands correspond to the Princess Hazel colt a mistake was inada at the time of entry in the catalogue The result of the A.J.C. Inquiry will b« awaited with interesL