Denton and Haughton Examiner, etc. — 1891-05-02 (Denton, Greater Manchester, England)

THE SPORTING LIBEL CASE.  Nobody who had followed the-latestlUrf Thal case was surprised to hear (the Standard remark.) that the defendants had consented to a verdiA which s carried the substantial but not vindictive damages of £lOO. The charge brought in the Licensed 1 Victuallers' Mirror against Lord Penrhyn and bin : racing associates at the Exton-park Stables was so I definite as to be quite unmistakeable. It was alleged i in May of last year that several of the horses from these stables, and especially Noble Chieftain, had • been guilty of in-and-out running. In the picturesque ' language of the sporting commentator, the peculiarities of one horse had given 'awful staggers' to its 1 backers; in fact, it had "made them turn right , down blood red." Nor was the accusation confined to any specified horses; it was roundly asserted that the animals from "a certain Rutland aristocratic stable "were so strangely affected by the atmosphere that "they rarely galloped in public two days alike." The imputation was clear enough, and it was not even disclaimed by the defendants in their pleading; indeed, it was adopted by their Counsel until it had to be withdrawn in preference to submitting it to the verdict of a jury. But, when sued for libel by Lord Penrhyn, the defendants pleaded that the attack had been directed not against him, but against his associates. There was dishonesty in his stables, they insisted, but it had been carried on without his knowledge. That is a distinction which no plaintiff in such a case could accept if he were a man of honour and spirit. It would have been mean to a degree for Lord Penrhyn to stand by and see shifted on his colleagues the imputations made against his stables ; and it was a poor compliment to his sportsmanlike perspicacity to suggest that his horses could heron unfairly and he be none the wiser. It was given in evidence that, as a matter of fact, Lord Penrhyn has been thoroughly in touch with his stables. It was not denied, of course, that in-and-out running might occasionally take place without an owner's complicity, and upon this admitted proposition the defendants' counsel founded a line of cross-examination which might have helped his clients had it not been summarily stopped by Mr. J ustice Hawkins. If the charge was to be shifted from Lord Penrhyn to somebody else, it was clear that the individual in question ought to have been named, and the details of the accusation set out. Failing to do this, the defendants did nothing. Prima facie, what they had printed was a libel on Lord Penrhyn ; if they suggested that other persons were animadverted upon, then they must say whom, in fact, they did intend to attack. The manager of Extonpark Stables, the trainer, and the jockey were called by the plaintiff; and no attempt was made to turn the evidence which they gave on his behalf to the discredit of any one of them. Under these circumstances, there was nothing left for the defendants but to make a graceful surrender, and to withdraw as against the Exton-park Stables the charge which they had all along refused to fix upon Lord Penrhyn himself. Let us look for a moment at the sort of evidence which disappointed backers of a certain class think sufficient to justly a charge of foul play. The name of Noble Chieftain, which we may take as a typical instance, was frequently mentioned in this case. The horse had been entered for a race at Doncaster, hitherto run over a six-furlong course, and inadvertently so advertised in the Calendar. It appears that Noble Chieftain was good at this distance, but useless over anything longer, not being able to last even for the two other furlongs in the mile, which turned out to be the distance laid down. Under ordinary circumstances, he would have been withdrawn as soon as the mistake had been discovered; but as it appeared that he had a very weak field against him, with only one dangerous competitor, he was allowed to run, was backed by his owner for f-500, and was beaten. On the next day he started in another race, but this time over his own distance, and came in first. Again he was backed by his owner, but for no more than £230. On such evidence as this, the backers, who welcome any gossip that will bear out their mistakes in judgment, seem to have jumped to the conclusion that Noble Chieftain had been pulled m the first race in order that he might start for the second with heavier odds against him. Yet the career of Noble Chieftain (and other incriminated horses from Exton-park) was singularly successful. In the three years between 1887 and 1890, out of 49 races, he had won 19, was second in 12, third in nine, and unplaced in nine. The fact is that those who want to know the public form of a horse must make a serious study of the subject. But backers do nothing of the sort; they look out for " tips," and ask their knowing friends whether this or that horse is "on the job" or merely 'out for an airing." Readers of Sir George Chetwynd's Racing Reminiscences will remember how he warns them against the danger of relying on "private information." Success is only to be got by patient following up of public form. And even that is untrustworthy, as one may gather from the story of a certain conscientious racing man who had lost his handicap book. Grievously he lamented to his friends how he was thrown out of his calculations, and they sympathised with him very heartily. But at last the missing guide to fortune was found in the pocket of a suicide, who had drowned himself in the Thames !