New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-08-17

church was more than the state, one
~ his supporters, who was not a
-burchman, but politician, answered:
II might as well declare that the Turf
&c more than either"
To many men l suppose II is. If not,
,.bv are the divisions Of the year so
aorallv distributed between Saints
Dsvs and Racing fixtures? II stats
,ical comparison were drawn between
attendance at Church and attendance
a, the great race meetings. the Church
uould have nothing to put beside the
-nultitudes az EPSON. at Ascot, and at
lancaster when the Derby, the Gold
run and the ST. Leger are run.
admit that this comparison cannot
10 pressed and ought not 20 ne. 1t Is
m, entirely serious, but II is inevitable
r.ben Won consider the Turf case which
after occupying for 2 week the un-
div,ded attention Of MIR. Justice Oar
ling in the Kings Bench Division of
tho High Court Of Justice, has just
ended. The newspapers have given 1t
complete page daily; which the pub
liz have devoured. The court was
,bronged with racing men of all de
qrees. The defendant was his own
counsel: with. however. Mr.. Marshall
Hall as counsel for his paper; and
cross-examined the plaintiff, who in
turn cross-examined the defendant till
the fudge interviewed. There was scene
after scene. Passion ran high. Coun-
sci lost their tempers. The judge took
nart IN the fray. There was laughter
and applause in the sacred precincts Of
justice.
All this because Mr.. Wootton, an
eminent trainer Of racehorses, sued
Mr.. Sievier. the eminent editor Of The
Winning Post" for libel Mr.. Sievier
asserted in his eminent paper that Mr.
Wootton was one Of a trainers ring the
members Of which agreed with each
other 10 win or lose races as best suited
their own purses, and so defrauded
the public. incidentally, jockeys were
ordered by Mr.. Wootton 10 run wide
and 70 win or not win races for the
same reason. This trainer, said his
counsel. was accused OF having been
engaged for long period in a course
n barefaced swindling: a compre-
hensive statement which dispenses
with the necessity Of details. The de-
fendant justified. In other words. ne
maintained in court that the charges he
had made in print were true; and ne
did his best 20 prove them true. Inc
Jury found they were not true in SUD
stance and in fact. and think Mr.. Sic
yier's comments on them were not fair
and honest, but that they were pub
lished without malice. Whereupon they
assessed the damages at one tarthlhs'
These findings Of the jury taken to-
gsther are absolutely illogical The
farthing verdict implies that IN the
iurv's opinion, the plaintiffs character
or reputation is 50 bad that libel could
damage IL only 10 the extent OF far-
thing. But Mr.. Wootton's character and
ronutation were at issue in this Trial
only so far as they were anected by
cbarges which this same jury had just
pronounced untrue. logic, however, rs Il
thing on which the English mind sets
slight value. Mr.. Justice Daring
roI5irz the scales even. allowed costs
% the plaintiff. which II was within
bis mower 10 withhold. As the costs
must amount 70 many thousands OF
dollars he does therefore infllct a
heavy fine on MI Sievier. Neither he
nor Mr.. N.ootton wins q complete tri-
umph. AS II was sworn in the trlal
that this would-be reformer OF the
turf had himself ct one time been
warned off the Turf, sympathy
with him would seem to be un-
called for. With his usual cynical con-
tempt for himself and for public opln-
ion. he said in court:
Il am no stained glass window jour
rsIjst am Satan rebuking sin.
Nevertheless. the crowd outside the
court taking account Of the farthlne'
cheered him. ! suppose there's a feel
ing that. whatever may be Mr.. Sievier' S
merits or dement's. he has done some
thing 10 let IN the light upon evil prac-
tees which DO 20 some extent prevail
on the Turf.
m other words, this trial has raised
the whole question Of Turf morals. the
verdict of the jury acquits Mr. Woot-
ton. but Mr. Wootton only The
Times" while holding that the major
itv Of owners. trainers Jockeys, book
makers and others engaged in racing
are honest men, nevertheless says:
The very fact that it was possible
Tor an experienced racing man like Mr.,
sievier 10 make the charges that he
did. and the admissions Of the exis-
,ence OF such malpractices as pulling
and foul riding that were made, as a
matter Of course. by almost all the
witnesses on both sides. are proof
enough. II proof were needed, Of the
liability Of the sport 10 the corrupung
Influences Of dishonesty and sharp
practice"
That great journal means to express
and probably does express, the average
opinion Of people who race or who bet.
They back horses very much as men
back their luck in a faro bank; well
knowing that the race may be foul run
or the faro bank tripot. But the pas
sion Of gambling is too strong 10 take