A SPORTING LIBEL ACTION.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1341, 31 March 1883, Page 4

A SPORTING LIBEL ACTION.

The libol action De Meatre against Syme.in which the plaintiff sought to recover; 5E5,000 damages, wnsheui-d in \ theSupremeOourt at Melbourne before Mr Justice Williams.. Tho libel complained of,\vas contained in the follow- ' ing passage, which appeared hi an : article in that journal shortly after the lute Spring Meeting of the V.R.O. : " Benefited to the extent of 61b by the airing to which he was treated in the Spring .Handicap on the'third day, Gudarz made no mistake when the stable money was piled on him for the .V.H.C. Handicap." It was asserted by the plaintiff that he was thus charged with " pulling" the horse named in tho Spring Handicap, in order that he might in the V.R.O. Handicap secure a reduction of weight, and thus win a larger amount. Plaintiff was represented by Mr Webb, Q.C.Mr Moltsworth, and Mr Box; for the defendant, Mr Purvis, Dr Maddon, and Mr Hodges appeared, The defendant pleaded—first, not guilty; and second, that the article complained of was a fair comment. Tho witnesses called for the plaintiff were closely questioned by Mr Purves as to the practice followed by Mr De Mcstrc when running his horses, but no attempt was made to rebut the statement of plaintiff that Gudarz was not pulled. Samuel Watchem, a commercial traveller, and a personal friend of Mr De Mestre's for many years, denied any knowledge of the plainlill having got up a sham trial between Oalatnia and Firebell for the purpose of inducing people to back the former whilst he won with the latter, At a 1 recent meeting De Mestre backed -'olitude, with which he declared to 1 win, and lost money by Navigator winning the event, making a difference to him (plaintiff) of about .£1,300. W. Hadden, trainer to Mr De Mestre, deposed that he could not account for the bad running of Gudarz in the Spring Handicap, except that the time was ' too good. Mr De Mestre, the plaintiff, 1 deposed that he had lost money through the failure of Gudarz to win the Spring

Handicap. He did not lose much, because he did not bet much as a rule. He won no bets by Gudarz winning the V.R.C. Handicap, He had not a penny on Navigator for the St. Leger, and had not a penny on him for tomorrow's race, but he would not scratch him now, because the public had got their money on him. If lie had another horse in the race, he might declare to win with Mm, as it vould be quite within his rights as owner, to

do so. Even if he had not the best horse, that did not mean that he would ■'null" Navigator, because he would let his best horse win. W. Pearson owner of racehorses, deposed lhat he interpreted the article to mean that De Mestre" pulled" Guzard in the Spring Handicap, If he did he deserved to be d squalified. "Witness would think the owner quite justified in scratching a horse on which the public plunged lielbre him, or in declaring to win with another horse. In summing up, the Judge pointed out that plaintiff was a public num. coinpotm«jfor public stakes, and bis actions were thus liable to fair criticism, The jury had to consider whether the comments in the 'Leader' were fair in view of the acts proved in evidence. It might be taken as conceded that Guzard was not " pulled," 1 ut defendant said the facts looked so suspicions that he was justified in commenting on them. Kven if such comments on the facts were erroneous; yet if tliey were fair, the defence was complete. The jury, after a brief deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendant.