New-York tribune., 1891-08-30
INFAVOR or HURONS STARTING
A DECISION BY JUDGE McADAM.
PERMITTING THE COLT 70 RUN CAN DO THE
JOCKEY CLUB no INJURY. uE SAYS.

JOCKEY CLUB no INJURY. UE SAYS.
| In the opinion which Judge McAdam. Of inc
! superior Court handed down yesterday ofucrihs
the Coney Island Jockey Club TO allow f. Corrgan .
colt Huron in the Fuirty. he took occasion 10
review at length the law regarding betuns ~,
general, and horse races in particular iiis luli
opinion is rs follows:
"The novelty Of the application Is no argument
against It, II IT finds solid support in jurispFnoeheo
At common law, bets or waeers upon horse-rsoe
were legal and 1t required statute 10 make them ui'
lawful This statute prohibited beta and staRes '"'
was denied at In which the competitors pu' Wy
the money, and whore one had the chance OF wii'"s
from the other (as in Gibbons VS.. Gouvernenr De"
100, and did apply where the stake WAS put up
by an outsider The payment Of the entrance fees py
the competitors to the racing association, or their m
corporation into the stake furnished by It, did nov
offend the statute. The statute provisions weie sup
santlay re-enacted in the Penal Code Ssect' rs ooA
and 352) but are, by the act commonly known as tl0
ives bill made nappncable TO racing associations dur
ing stated periods MAY IS and october 10 IN each
| year. see Laws of 1887, Chapter 470. Ths esS-
latve expression indicated tendency on the part Oh
the State TO relax previous laws against the racing OF
animals and interpreted III the light OF the authorizes
cited relieves the contract sought to be enforced Oh
all aint of illegalty. Illegal gaming mphes ioss VI
gain by the parties determined by lot or chance tna'
! is what the one party 10 the wager ioses
| contributed by stranger for the dehs
of something by Others is quite different thing INC
person Offering the stake has not chance OF Shphs
the thing offered. and has pecunlary interest III to
strife made by the contestants Such contest "here
the contestant has all to gain and nothing 10 iose' s
not Illegal and since the Ives bill 1887 has, III ee'''
legislative sanction The defendant does not seek 10
withdraw its OFFER Or repudiae its promises 1t STANDS
| upon the offer as a contract and 1t VIII be tealeu
accordingly. 1t declines 10 permit the colt 10 run o
two grounds only FIRST because. as IL says the co1
was not sold with Its engagements and next because
the former owner May A. 1890, cancelled the enty'
| The plaintiff bought the colt April 20, 1sso' as
| eligible 10 the Futurty race, which means fegaiiy
qualified to enter into it, This being the plain import
and intent Of the SALE the former owner could not eiter
dsposing of the colt eligible do any act after ths
! salo that could make him Ineligible The cAt was
sold with this engagement If no other. 1t Is not
eontended that the entry is a personal privilege, for
the ri,es Of the defendant permit sale Win the
engagement is the transfer required to be eVl-
denced By writing except where the nominator dies
| before the race.
"The defendant also claims that the plaintiff con-
sented TO cancel the entry. but this Is disputed ana
as the affirmative of proving such consent Is on tho
defendant the fact has not been established BY evil
dence Of that preponderating character that can be
called conclusive. AS racing associations have by egs-
aIye enactment been brought within the pale Of the
law they must not complain If the law acts npon thehi
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 TINS
| motion.
"The plaintiff has equities, and Is entitled 10 lehei
He bought the colt with the entry into the Futurity
race of 1901 and may have paid more for 1t on that
| account. 1t will be more valuable If it WINS TO
exclude the colt from the would deprive the plain
f Of all possibility of rghtlng 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 plaintiff
should not be deprived Of largo possible gains without
a judicial determination after formal trial Of his
action and hearing on the merits. Permitting the
plaintiffs colt TO run can do the defendants no possible
Injury. The colt has splendid record and ought 10
| be welcomed to the struggle. Under the circum-
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 asceftaned
IL il loses the race the absence Of all claim is at once
determined II It succeeds, the plaintiff Is furnished
with basis upon which TO assert his legal rights.
This will not prevent the defendant from determining
in its own way which horse rgbtfuly entered the
or win the stakes, from paying it over according
to its decision. II simply preserves whatever liability
legiimatey flowing from the contract IL may have In
Cured to the plaintiff, and this may be determined in
an action TO enforce the To this extent the
plaintiffs right to equitable relief is clearly established
An Injunction will be granted to carry into effect these
Views II will be conditional upon the payment OF
of the usual undertaking in the sum OF ,0OO."