SPORTING CASE-THE GUY STAKES.

WOOD, BART., v. ATKINS.-This cause excited considerable interest in the sporting world. It was an action brought at the Warwick Assizes, on Monday last, by Sir Mark Wood against Mr. Atkins, the Clerk of the course for the Warwick races, to recover the sum of £600, the amount of the Guy Stakes run for at these races last year. The Duke of Richmond, who was subpoenaed as a witness, was on the bench. Other members of the Jockey Club were also present.

on

Mr. Serjeant Goulburn, opening the plaintiff's case to the Jury, stated that the real defendant in the action was Mr. Beardsworth, of Birmingham, who, as well as the plaintiff, was well known on the turf. These gentlemen were the respective owners of the two horses that had come in first and second in the race for the Guy Stakes, run at Warwick on the 7th September, 1830. There were thirty-one subscribers to these stakes, of fifty guineas each, several of whom, as usual, became defaulters, and paid forfeit. Nine horses ran; and the produce of the subscriptions and. forfeits amounted to nearly £1000, and had been paid to the defendant Atkins, whose duty it was, as clerk of the course, to receive subscriptions, and hand them over to the person whose horse was declared by the stewards to be the winner. Mr. Beadsworth's horse (Birmingham) came in first, and

Sir Mark Wood's horse (Cetus) came in second; but the latter was declared entitled to the stakes under the circumstances about to be stated, according to the rules by which such matters were governed, and so declared by the stewards of the Jockey Club, to whom the case had been referred. A decision so pronounced, by a tribunal the most competent in such matters, after an agreement to refer the question to that tribunal, was, the learned Serjeant contended, final and conclusive between these parties, and he therefore apprehended that they were precluded from going into the original merits of the question, although, if they did, the plaintiff would be shown to be entitled on the merits, as well as by the decision already pronounced in his favour, to the amount of the stakes in question. The learned Serjeant here referred to a case reported in the volume of the Racing Calendar for 1810, in which the Court held a decision of the Jockey Club on a question of this kind binding. [The reference to the Racing Calendar as an authority for a legal decision excited some pleasantry in Court, which was increased by the learned Judge pointing out in the list of subscribers to that volume the name of Sir James Mansfield, the then Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.] The learned Serjeant was happy to see, although he had merely quoted from this book as an authority amongst sporting gentlemen, that it was one of a high legal character also, as it had come forth with the sanction of no less a personage than the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. [Laughter.] The horses which were to run for the Guy Stakes of 1830 were the produce of mares covered in 1826, to be named by

the owners. They were hence called "Produce Stakes." Mr. Mytton, a gentleman not unknown in sporting circles, named the mare, Miss Craigie, of which the horse Birmingham was the produce, by Whalebone; Mr. Gantlet named the mare Lamia, of which the horse Cetus was the produce, by Filho da Puta. It was unnecessary to mention the names of the other horses that had run, these being the two that had come in first and second. There was no dispute as to the fairness of the race; but it was a rule laid down by the Jockey Club, and well known on the turf, that no person who is in arrear for subscriptions or forfeits shall be allowed to start a horse until he has paid up; and that if the horse of such person were to start and win the race, he would not be entitled to the stakes, which would in such case go to the owner of the horse coming in next after him. The objection against Mr. Beardsworth in the present instance was, that Mr. Mytton, in whose name Birmingham had been entered for the race, was in arrear at the time for stakes and forfeits, both at Warwick and at Winchester, and consequently Sir Mark Wood, who had become the owner of Cetus, the horse that came in second, claimed the stakes from the clerk of the course, who, of course, refused to give them up to either party until the question was decided. The parties referred the matter to the stewards, with power to choose a third party as umpire. These gentlemen-namely, Mr. Lucy, the present High Sheriff of this county (then acting as steward for Mr. Č. Wise, who was at Hastings), and Mr. Gifford not feeling themselves competent to decide upon the point, referred it, with the consent of the parties, to the stewards of the Jockey Club at Newmarket.

Written statements of their respective claims were required from Sir Mark and Mr. Beardsworth, which were accordingly sent in, and these statements were transmitted by Mr. Lucy and Mr. Gifford to the stewards of the Jockey Club, two of whom, the Duke of Richmond and Mr. C. Wilson, met at Newmarket in October, and chose Mr. Irby, a member of the Jockey Club, to supply the place of Lord Verulam, the third steward, who was absent. After having considered the statements sent in on both sides, these three gentlemen decided that Sir Mark Wood was entitled to the stakes, and forwarded their decision in writing to the clerk of the course. Mr. Beardsworth, nevertheless, persisted in his claim, and the defendant consequently refusing to pay over the money, he being no doubt indemnified by Mr. Beardsworth, the present action was brought to recover the amount in

any other course would disqualify him here.

Mr. Clarke, in his address to the Jury on the part of the defendant, contended that they had nothing to do with the rules or decision of the Jockey Club. Neither Mr. Beardsworth nor Mr. Mytton was a member of that Club, and consequently they were not bound by its rules. Why should the rules of that Club be allowed to govern all the races of this country, and supersede both the established law of the land and the law of common sense? It was not denied that Birmingham, Mr. Beardsworth's horse, came in first, and had therefore won the race. There was no complaint of any unfairness on Mr. Beardsworth's part; and why then take the stakes from him and give them to the owner of a beaten horse? The Jury were bound to attend to the merits of the case, and not trouble their heads about any absurd regulations of the Jockey Club, upon plea of which it was attempted to deprive this gentleman of the prize he had won. All the parties were on the course on the day of the race, and why did not Sir Mark Wood make his objection, if he thought it a valid one, before the horses started? If not valid, it would then at least have been a fair one, and Mr. Beardsworth would not have had so much reason to complain of it. But Sir Mark Wood, although he saw both Mr. Mytton and Mr. Beardsworth on the course, thought proper to lie by and take his chance of winning, in fraud of the other subscribers, if the objection was a good one; and then, finding his own horse second, he came forward with his objection, and claimed the stakes. With respect to what had been called the award of the Stewards of the Jockey Club, that was no award at all, nor anything

But Mr.

in the form of an award. Beardsworth never submitted his case to the Jockey Club; he merely submitted it to the stewards of the Warwick races, who, although they admitted that his horse had come in first, without any unfairness, yet declined to decide the question, but sent it to the gentlemen of the Jockey Club. Mr. Beardsworth, however, dissented from this, and actually wrote to Mr. Gifford to that effect. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that any authority he might be supposed to have given to submit the case to the Club had been revoked; and that, not being a member of that Club, and his horse having fairly won the race, he was clearly entitled to the stakes, notwithstanding any rules by which that society might be themselves guided.

Evidence was then called on behalf of the defendant; but the only important point proved wes that Mr. Gifford had received a letter from Mr. Beardsworth, in October last, in which he told him he might do as he liked; but that he (Mr. Beardsworth) did not wish to submit his case to the Steward of the Jockey Club.

Mr. Serjeant Goulburn having replied,

The Lord Chief Justice informed the Jury that the questions for their consideration were, whether or not the parties had submitted their case to the decision of the Stewards of the Jockey Club, and whether that decision had been pronounced? With respect to the letter proved to have been written to Mr. Gifford by Mr. Beardsworth, his Lordship was of opinion that the terms of it did not amount to revocation of the submission.

The Jury, after having retired for some time, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages £600.

On the 6th we killed three more hog at the cane-field, and proceeded to Nimgaum to sleep. On the 7th we came to the ren dezvous, Carnullah, where we found three gentlemen from Poonah, with tents pitched and horses ready, and three more from Sholapoor arrived soon after. shall pass over the greetings,

I

the examination of the studs, the frequent questions relative to the anticipated sport, and above all, the conviviality of the evening; everything went off just as everyone knows it should, and on the morning of the 8th we were at the Potrat jungle, each mounted on his best hunter. Most inauspiciously, nothing but two very small squeakers were found. I dare say most people know the feeling experienced when, expecting something superlatively good, they find it a do. I observed the whole of the field on this occasion most determinedly silent, which is generally the effect of this feeling, and thus they continued during the whole of our unlucky beat along the river Seena, until, on our arrival at the tents at Donjah, that good fellow Hodgson opened their mouths.

9th. We hunted at Domgaum, where a sounder was marked down. The ground on the Seena at this part is the worst I ever hunted on. The Godavery is a drawing-room floor compared with it. The river is full of mud and water, the banks difficult of descent everywhere, and in some

This boar measured 5ft. from the snout to the root of his tail.

on each side are bad, and a nullah stares you in the face at every thirty yards. Out of seven goodsized hog that started, five were killed at the first burst; another was found after tiffin and killed after a long run, in the course of which Mr. J- of the Artillery, broke his leg in one of the nullahs, but I am happy to say he is now nearly recovered. We afterwards killed a half-grown boar that led us a long way, and then returned to our tents, but had hardly taken our seats at the mahogany when we were summoned to rise, and in half an hour were in full cry after a boar and sow at Dewulgaum, about a mile and a half from Donjah. These were quickly run into, and completed our day's sport. During the two ensuing days the spear remained idle, as no more hog were to be found, and we awaited the arrival of a surgeon to take charge of our unlucky friend. On the 12th he arrived, and leaving the two to settle matters between them quietly, we moved towards the Beema, where the accounts of hog were tempting.

13th. We were at Hingnee, with a sounder of sixteen waiting for us; through a mistake, however, three gentlemen had all the fun to themselves, and killed a large sow. The next day not a hog was to be found in the jungles, and we were obliged to make a very wide circle in beating, during which one hog only was found, but he was a very fine boar. Here, again, the fun fell to the share of only one of the party, who being behind the rest shooting, twigged the hog sneaking back, and after a hard run killed him.

15th. We tried Jeetee; thirty

95 miles; from Sholapoor about 60, and from Nuggur 50.

but six only were found, and what were they among so many?