Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1878-07-11
THE RULED-OUT RACERS.


following reference to the matters of differ
! euce which resulted in the ruling off from,
tine Carson Soeietys course, of Allen Bragg
and Tom Norcross
! We have not seen Mr. Norcross to obtain
his version of the affair, and we are 10th to
! believe that any Remote would attempt such
! A dirty trick as Is alleged. MIR. Bragg claims
| that he is As innocent as q babe unborn. he
saws that he sold Morgan to Norcross for the
race for 49, and he himself had nothing to
do with the race, and so told two of the
Judges at the time, and when asked by par
ties who wanted to buy pools what to do de-
clned to give any advice or express his
! opinion.
! We have seen Norcross and he tells US that
instead of the Renoites putting up any job 1t
was the Carsonites who put it up and got
away with it; that Hill, Pantlind, and others
of the Carson Society, after buying lots Of
pools on Cook, had Denison put up to drive
him, knowing that his driving would be
equal to two or three seconds in the race,
which it was, and they thereby won, despite
protest, declaring the pools should follow
| the race
Now what are the facts! Let us see if we
| cannot present them UNDERSTANDABLE. On
Sunday last match for purse of 800 was
trotted between the horses Jim Cook and
Tom Morgan. Jim Cook was known to be
the more likely horse to win and was favorite
in the pools at 20 to II. The race was mile
heats, 3 in 5. Norcross drove Cook and q
man named French drove Morgan. The record
shows that Morgan won the two first heats,
,,,O = 4 tha LOOT
and winning heats in 243t, 2;48 and 2:413.
Mr.. Matt Canavan who was the Judge, de-
cided the race in favor of Cook. A part of
the history of the race is that gentleman
who was interested in the pools protested,
after the first two miles had been trotted,
that Cook was not being driven fairly. Upon
his protest against Norcross, Dan Denison
was substituted for Norcross. and under
Dams driving the race was won by Cook
Being beaten at their own game, the Nor
cross party protested against the payment of
the pools. Hence the meeting of the Trus-
tees and their decision that the pools should
be paid and that Bragg and Norcross should
be ruled off the track forever.
Now for something Of the true inwardness
Of this business: Tom Norcross entered Cook.
Bragg himself admits that he had sold
Morgan" for $75 to Norcross before the
race. So that, when the race was trotted,
Norcross virtually owned both the horses and
could and did control the manner OF theirdriv-
ing. 1t is not disputed that Norcross bet large
ly on Morgan Notwithstanding that he drove
Cook the two first miles vi the match More
over, French the driver Of Morgan, was the
actual person represented by the fictitious
names OF Roberts and Pollock to the amount
of $40 in the pool box. He SO acknowledges
himself to be in writing.
Now with regard to the accusation against
Pantlnd and Hill, and the Trustees generally, !
this much is to be said, namely: That if
these gentlemen had been influenced by a
mean and selfish policy, they would have de-
clared the pools off, as Norcross & Co. wanted |
for the fact is that owing to some injudicious |
crediting by the man in charge Of the box,
the Society is out about 5000 By declaring |
the pools off, they would have saved this |
L
name was not in the pool-box at all. He did |
buy two pools, one against the other, as
to make it as near standoff as possible; but |
by this very act of hedging he made himself |
without any interest in the pools. |
He bid for these two pools merely to give the
bidding start.
The case is plain enough. Norcross hired
Braggs horse for the purpose Of using him
in an unfair race He knew that Cook could |
win the match and that the pool buyers
would bet on him. When he saw his game
,heckmated he sought to have the pools de-
dared off The Trustees did just exactly
right They detected fraud and not only set
heir face against it but ruled its perpetrators
off the track. If Bragg is an innocent party
ct him explain his singular transaction with
Norcroas.
Now mere is case which we should like to
zee decided by a Congress Of Turfmen. 1t
'eems to us that the Society would be wise to
AXE steps to have the matter brorght before
competent tribunal of this character The
outcome would be such decision as could be
made the basis of sound and inhexible rule
n such cases. Ii it is not crime against
he Turf for man to do what Norcross did,
We can not conceive of what can be done to
lisentitle man to be regarded with favor