THE TURF LIBEL CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2656, 8 May 1894, Page 4

THE TURF LIBEL CASE.

The turf libel action of Hayes v. the Australasian has been proceed ing (says an Australian paper) this week, aud the Court has been crowded daily with horsey people, including iockeys tracers, owners and bookmaker., Amougstlthe witnesses are Messrs Pay tens Hickeubotham, Huxley, Power, Dawes, Brewer, S. G. Cook, Harris, Smith, and many others well-known in the sporting world, including 0, Bladings, formerly of Now Zealand. T’ayten gave evidence that in February 1893, in the Alma Stakes, Hayes was guilty of foul riding aud prevented horses from winning. On the same day, in the Oakleigh Handicap, the plaintiff, on Gladstone, endangered the life of Dawes, the rider of Premier, by crushing him on the rails. It was a most serious piece of foul riding. The other evidence painted Hayes in very black colours. Rudings, for instance, declared that Hayes had tried to turn a two-year-old into a steeplechaser by driving him at a fence as the only way of stopping him from winning; and in a hurdle iu which Hayes was riding Timnthouo ko chased Seasoug and Victim all ovw the course to stop them. On one occasion he c&hgbt The Magistrate by the bridle and held qh f,p film for fifty yards. At Aspen dale he *o As a horse called Stonebruke to lose, and he wae ao pear winning that he had to start StonebroVs pjjipbing Bridegroom’s back. An owner called &Gott f svJjo was in with Hayes, backing Bridegroom, if was the best piece of horsemanship ha over saw. This man began by backing Hayes’s WPg and paying him 10 per cent, of his winnings Then he became an owner. But Hayes took him down by losing a two-year-old race with s4tic, a »d that ruined him. Among othev incidents narrated by this witness was the “ taking dowof Hayes’ own father, who was advised to a horse that he said they had agreed the night before to lose with Hayes. At this time, according to the statements of the witness, Hayes was net good friends with bis father, and Scott had either to “take the father or offend the sou.

Theactiou came to a very unsatisfactory termination. The jury (a jury of siy.) failed to agree, after being locked up all night, and were discharged. This leaves it open to the jockey to go ou with a new dp/,?), but it is very unlikely that he will do fpj the jury were four to two against bins. Tho Chief Justice summed up again sf him, and pfia public feeling was certainly agal.'jst him.