ENGLISH TURF SCANDAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 April 1922, Page 11

ENGLISH TURF SCANDAL.

CAPTAIN PEEL IN COURT.- \ ADMISSION UNEXPECTED. A GRUESOME INTERLUDE. 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 placed on their trial on the charge of obtaining money from bookmakers by forging the time of telegrams backing Paragon for the Duke of York Stages last October, says a London paper of March 8. There was astonishment when Captain Peel pleaded “Guilty.” His wile pleaded “Not guilty.” Those who crowded the Court had hardly been hushed from’their gasp of surprise at Captain Peel’s plea when the young couple, the central figures of the now famous “Telegram Bets Case” were removed from the dock, and there stepped into it an ashen-grey elderly man between, two warders. He was Keeling, the murderer of a woman in Tottenham. Faces 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 w he sentenced the man to death. Tn a moment the murderer, “for 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 20 minutes —after a short, softly-spoken argument between Sir Charles Gill, K.C. (for the prosecution) 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 down the same stairs to the 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 £lOOO to stand trial with her husband at the appointed time. “Take me away from this,” she sobbed to the friends who supported her. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MRS. PEEL. When the case was before the magistrate at Bow Street, Mr. Harold Pearce for the Postmaster-General, alleged that Captain and Mrs. Peel obtained money from bookmakers by means of forged telegrams sent from Avon Dassett Post Office after the horse Paragon passed the winning post in the Duke of York Stakes at Kempton Park on October 8, 1921.

It was then alleged that Mrs. Peel obtained the name of the winner while telephoning from the post office to a stockbroker friend, Mr. Leslie Dow, in bis London club, and that she communicated this information t-o her husband, who prevailed on the elderly postmaster to mark the telegrams as handed in. at 2.45 p.m., before the start of the race. Captain and Mrs. Peel then denied the charge. There were five women on the jury when Captain and Mrs. Peel surrendered 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 a blue serge suit. QUESTION OF COERCION. Sir Charles Gill, K.C., -for the prosecution, appeared somewhat taken aback by the contradictory pleas, and was quickly on his feet, asking Mr. Justice Darling to give a ruling on the law with regard to husband nnd wife and the question of “coercion.” “It will be noticed,” he said, “that in the indictment there is no charge of conspiracy, because, as the law stands at present, a husband and wife cannot conspire together to commit a criminal 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. Tn such cases the wife is entitled to an acquittal, but this may be rebutted by evidence that the wife is the instigator of the act, or that the husband is incapable of coercing her as being the weaker of the two.” Mr. Justice Darling: Women 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 beat his wife so long as he used a stick no thicker than his thumb. Sir diaries Gill then explained that the offence was the uttering of forged telegrams. 'Captain Peel sent the telegrams, and the instructions as to coding came from him. The statements in regard thereto were made by the husband in the absence of his wife.

“MUST PROCEED.” Mr. Justice Darling, after further argument, in which he 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 case, and added, “I shall hold that the case must proceed.” Sir Henry Curtis 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 aft?r the trial of the Hooley case, and secured the release of Mrs. Peel on bail. Mr. Justice Darling refused to grant bail for Captain Peel. “It is not usual,” he said, “to grant bail for a person pleading guilty. I do not see that there can be any hardship. Look what he has pleaded guilty to!” It has since been stated by cablegram that Mrs. Peel was acquitted on the charges preferred against her, Mr. Justice Darting upholding the doctrine that when a woman committed a crime like this in the physical presence of her husband the law prescribed that she acted under his coercion. Captain Peel was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.