New-York tribune., 1891-08-30
INFAVOR FHURONS STARTING
A DECISION BY JUDGE McADAM.
EnMrrr1Se THE c6Lr 70 RUN CAN DO THE
JOCKEY CLUB no INJURY, HE SAYS.

JOCKEY CLUB no INJURY, HE SAYS
In the opinion which Judge McAdam on u'o
superior Court, handed down yesterday, orucrlne
the Coney Island Jockey Club TO allow E. Corrisa
colt Huron to run in the Futrity he took occasion "
rcvIcw at some length the law regarding bettne ~
general, and horse races In particular. iiis i0n
opinion is rs follows:
"The novelty OF The application Is 10 argument
against IT, II II finds solid support In lurlsprupeh'o
At common law bets or waeers upon hofseface
were legal. and it required statute 10 make them u'
lawful This statute prohibited bets and stakes i'
was denied at in which the competitors p' pP
tho money, and where one had the chance OF whn'ns
from the other (as in Gibbons VS.. Gouvernenr, Dei
17O and did not apply where the Stake was put W
by an outsider. The payment OF the entrance ices "
the competitors TO the racing association or their i
corporatIon into the stake furnished by it, did not
offend the statute The statute provisions were sup
stantally re-enacted In the Penal Code secuohs ooi
and 352), but are by the act commonly Known az ~"
Ives bill, made inapplcabe to racing assocauVis uoi
ing stated periods MAY Is and October 10 nv ep'"
year, see Laws OF 1887 Chapter 40 rms iesS
ative expression indicated tendency on the part ol
the state to relax previous laws against the racng Oh
animals and interpreted in the light OF the authorizes
cited relieves the contract sought to be enforced Oh
all tant of iegaIity Illegal gaming implies JOSS of
gain by the parties determined by lot or chanoo' '
is, what the party TO the wager LOSES
tho other wins purse, prize OF preonaii. mum
contributed by q stranger for the u9ihB
OF something by Others is quite different tmng' Inc
person Offering the stake has not chance Oh ghpus
the thing offered and has pecuniary interest III ene
strife made by tho contestants Such contest "here
the contestant has all to gain and nothing 10 iooe' 10
not legal and since the Ives bill 1887 mas jill ee''
legislative sanction. The defendant does not seeh ~
withdraw Its offer, repudiate It's PROMISES ~ s"
upon the offer as a contract and 1t VIII be uea'eu
,saynif
two grounds only FIRST because, as IL says. te co''
was not sold with Its engagements and next because
the former owner on May $780, cancelled the entry'
The plaintiff bought the colt on April 20 lsSo' do
eligible 10 the Futurty race, which means 'fesa'iy
qualified to enter into IT, This being the psih po'
and intent OF the SALE the former owner could not eei
disposing Of the colt as eligible, do any act afer e
sale that could make him ineligible The o'it was
sold with this engagement ii no other 1t Is no'
contended that the entry is personal privilege ioi
the rules Of tue defendant permit sale WIN oie
eugagement nor is the transfer required 10 De eVi
denced by writing, except where the nominator oes
| before the
"The defendant also claims that the plaintin con-
sented to cancel the entry, but this Is disputed ana
AZ the affirmative of proving such consent Is on the
defendant the fact has not been established BY eV
dence OF that preponderatng character that can DC
called conclusive. AS racing associations nave Dy ieGls
ative enactment been brought within The pale OF the
law they must not complain If the law acts upon thei
and enforces their agreements, 1t does the promises
of other associations and corporations. The rights and
obligations of the parties may be more satisfactorily
established and determined at the trial than they can
within the short time allowed for he decision OF thls
motion. 49,
"The plaintiff has equities. and Is entitled 10 eiieI
He bonght the colt with the entry into the Fuurty
race of 1sol and may have paid more for 1t on that
| account 1t will be more valuable If 1t wins. To
exclude the colt from the would deprive the plain
IN of all possibility OF righng his grievance for he
could not prove that his horse would have won the
race trial on the track in company with the other
competitors will alone determine that. The plainti
should not be deprived of largo possible gains without
a judicial determination after formal trial Of his
action and hearing the merits. Permitting the
plaintiffs colt 10 do the defendants no possible
injury The colt has a splendid record, and ought 10
| he welcomed to the struggle Under the circunl-
stances the interest Of all parties Will be best con
served by permitting the horse to run in the race IN
order that the status OF the be ascealned
II ID loses the race the absence Of all claim is at once
| with basis upon which 10 assert his legal nights.
This will not prevent the defendant from determining
in its own way which horse rightfuy entered the race
or win the stakes from paying II over according
to ts decision II simply preserves whatever liability
lepmately flowing from the contract II may have IN
curred TO the plaintiff and this may be determined in
an action TO enforce the same. To this extent the
An Injunction will be granted to carry into effect these
| views II will he conditional upon the payment OF
tender of the $3.50 fee to the defendant and the filing
of the usual undertaking In the sum OF 81, ,000."