Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-30
For sos. Is in Action in
Horse Racing Case
Involving Alleged Malicious Con.
duct Of Judges Of Race.
Decision In kennebec Farm Sale
Case In Which Deceit Was Claimed.

The law court has handed down a
decision in the Sagadahoc county cases
| of Carleton VS.. Fletcher ct ais, which
is Of great interest TO horsemen all
over the State, involving, as it does
the alleged malicious conduct of the
judges of horse lace in suspendine
| the plaintiffs horse, Baron Sidnut. The
law court sustains a verdict OF sos. l.
for the plaintiff and 'overrules a mo-
ton for a new trial The full text OF
the rescript is as follows:
Frank W. Carleton vs.. Herbert f.
| Fletcher ct ais. Per Curtain.
The plaintiff brought this action
against the defendants to recover dam
ages alleged to have been directly
caused by their willful and malicious
conduct as judges of the horse races in
September, 1911, in suspending the
plaintiffs horse, Baron Sidnut. from
competing over any track of the Ma
tienal Trotting Association, and also
| the consequential damages resulting
| from such suspension. The jury re-
turned verdict in favor of the plain
| tiff for $70S.15.
The case comes to the law court
solely TN motion to set aside the yer
| dict as against the evidence. No ex-
ceptiOns were taken To the admission
or exclusion of evidence, or to any in
structions given To the jury by the pre-
siding Justice.
In the go race three horses were en-
| tered, viz: Katherine Kohl, Baron Sid
nut and Roadbird. The plaintiff was
the owner of Sidnnt and f. Fl. Wiggin.
supafinte ndent of the horse department
of the society. was the owner Of Roam
bird. A. +. Russell was the driver of
Sidnat, and Robert Waite the driver of
Roanbird. In the fourth heat, accord
ing to the testimony for the plaintiff,
Katherine Kohl had the pole with Sid
nut next and Roanbird outside. As
they went down the, turn, Waite driv-
ing Roanbird, touched her with the
whip and swung up against Sidnuts
wheel and onto his legs, causing him to
break and run. Thereupon, Waite pull
ed away, and Russell got Sidnut back
to his stride and finished second. But
the defendants, as judges of the race,
set Baron Sidnut back for foul driv-
ing and interfering, on the part of
RUSSELL his driver. Russell appeared
before the judges and attempted To ex-
plain the incident according to the
facts, as claimed by him, when he was
knocked down by Waite, in the pres
enee of the judges. and beaten and
bruised until he was unconscious.
For this fragrant violation of the
rules, the judges not only failed to I'M
pose upon Waite the penalty prescrib-
ed by the association or even to adj
minister a reprimand; but rendered
their decision as above stated.
1t appeared that in this heat the
plaintiffs horse, Baron Sidnut. cast
the larger part of one of his shoes,
but owing to the fact that his driver
had been temporarily disabled by the
assault committed upon him by Waite,
the loss of the shoe was not discov-
cred for 10 or Is minutes after the
heat. Prompt inquiry and search were
then made for blacksmith, but when
one was found only five minutes re-
manned before the fifth heat was to
be started The judges thereupon re-
quired the plaintiff to have his horse
shod in that time, or race him with
out being shod. The blacksmith de-
clared that it was impossible to put
on a shoe in five minutes, but the
judges ordered the fifth heat to go on
without Baron Sidnut: and the plain
tiff claimed that the heat was started
and raced after sunset, in violation
of the rules, Waite being allowed to
drive Roanbird without censure for
| the past or warning for the future.
The next day the plaintiff protest
| ed this action of the judges in terms
which reflected upon their good faith.
! Thereupon, by order of the judges,
| the plaintiffs horse, Baron Sidnut,
| and his driver, A. f. Russell, Were
suspended for 60 days for foul driving
| i'm the fourth heat.
But after learning that they had
| no authority TO suspend the plaintiff s
horse for foul driving. the judges in
| formed the plaintiff that if he would
| withdraw his protest they would
| withdraw the suspension of his horse
and driver. The plaintiff declined to
accept this proposition, and 10 days
later, on the plaintiffs application,
| Baron Sidnut and his driver. A. e.
Russell were temporarily reinstated
! by the president of the National Trot-
ting Associations and, Dee. IA. follow
ing. this action was confirmed by the
| Board of Review.
I 70
the fact that F. FL. Wiggin, the owner
of Roanpird. by virtue of his position
as superintendent of the horse depart
ment, appointed the defendants
Judges of the races, and then bought
| pools on his own horse for the 220
! trot. the night before the race.
| IL IS claimed in behalf of the plain
| tiff that these facts and circumstances
are clearly established by the evidence.
1t is contended that in setting back
Baron Sidnut for foul driving, in
/ ignoring the violent assault commit
| ted upon the driver. in refusing to
| give the plaintiff an opportunity to
have his horse shod for the fifth heat,
and in ordering the heat to be raced,
that evening, with Sidnut left out the
defendants were acting in pursuance
| of a preconceived purpose to favor
! Roanbfd to the disadvantage of Sid
| nut and the detriment of the plain
! tiff; and it is further contended that
] in suspending the plaintiffs horse
i and driver for 60 DAYS for foul driving,