Answer: "The bet must stand, as the race was determined before the compromise was proposed.

66

"25th April, 1801.

66

Signed (per order),

E. W."

7.—A Double Bet-First Event Lost, Second Off by

Consent.

A betted B 107. to 87. that Whale did not win either the Garden Stakes or the match with Beiram. Whale was beaten in the Garden Stakes, and the match with Beiram was off by consent. Query Is A entitled to receive or not?

:

Answer: "The money must be put together and divided."

Remark: Some persons have considered this an erroneous decision, because A after winning his first event loses 17., but it is strictly correct according to law and equity; the second event being off on even terms was equivalent to a dead heat. If A had taken 207. to 107., which probably was the right betting, instead of laying 107. to 87. on the two events, he would have won 57., but by making a bad bet he suffered the penalty.

8.—A Horse wrongly Described-Bets not Paid. 2 to 1 was laid on Turquoise against Elinor for the Oaks. Elinor being improperly named as

Elinor, by Gustavus, was not allowed to start. The question whether the bet was to stand or not was submitted to the stewards of the Jockey Club, who referred it to a general meeting, at which it was ultimately decided that the bet was void.

Remark: This decision is of great importance; it rests on the principle that if you can't win you cannot lose, and on the fact that there was no such animal as the Elinor, by Gustavus, described in the Oak Stakes.

9.-A Bet improperly Declared Off.

Mr. S. claimed to have taken 100 to 5 of Mr. R. in 1827 that Matilda would win the St. Leger.

The defence was that the bet was so illegibly entered by Mr. R. in his book, that he had written to Mr. S. to know if he had made such a bet, and receiving no answer, had declared the bet off at Doncaster.

It appeared in evidence that Mr. S. has answered both the letters of Mr. R. to the address given, but that they had been refused and not called for, and returned through the post-office.

"The stewards of the Jockey Club are of opinion that Mr. S. is entitled to receive the bet of Mr. R."

10.-A Dead Heat-Stakes Divided-Bets Paid in

Proportion.

The Duke of Rutland and Mr. Wyndham, whose filly and colt ran a dead heat for a sweepstakes in the Craven Meeting, 1822, agreed to divide the stakes but it being necessary for one of the horses to walk over, a doubt arose as to the mode of settling bets, and the following cases were submitted to the Jockey Club:

First-A bets B 5 to 2 on the field against one of the horses which ran the dead heat; secondly, A bets B 57. on the field against the other horse which ran the dead heat; thirdly, A bets B 3 to 1 that one of the horses which ran the dead heat, and Augusta in the Claret, did not both win.

The stewards decided that in the first and second cases the money betted must be put together and divided; and in the third case that the dead heat being the first event the bet thereby became void.

11.-A Similar Case-Heats-Sweepstakes Divided -Bets Ditto.

For the Lansdown Stakes at Bath, Mrs. Day's Brother to Lusher, Mr. Sadler's Achilles, and Mr. Wreford's Wilna had each won a heat; Wilna was then drawn; Mrs. Day and Mr. Sadler agreed

to divide the Stakes, and Brother to Lusher

walked over.

Two questions were submitted to the stewards of the Jockey Club, who decided-first, that the bets should be put together and divided in the same proportion that had been agreed upon in respect of the stakes; secondly, that Brother to Lusher must carry extra weight on future occasions as the winner of this race.

Remark: Achilles was equally liable to carry extra weight as Brother to Lusher in any subsequent race where such penalty was imposed on the winner of a sweepstakes. The act of walking over makes no distinction where the parties divide equally.

12.-A Bet Lost not allowed to be Paid to a Third

Party.

A admitted that he had lost 1007. to B; but declined paying it because he intended paying it to C, who had a claim on B for 1007.

The stewards decided that A must pay the 1007. to B forthwith, as no transfer could take place without the consent of both parties.

13.-A Disputed Bet Decided by the State of the Odds.

Mr. S. had taken a bet of 20 to 2 that Scroggins and Elis would be first and second for the St. Leger, which Mr. B. refused to pay, alleging that Mr. S. had placed Scroggins first and Elis second. This was contradicted by Mr. S.'s witness, whose testimony was corroborated by the state of the odds.

The stewards of the Jockey Club decided that Mr. S. was entitled to receive the bet from Mr. B.

14.-Disputed Bet.

This was a case of a bet on the Coffee Room Stakes, on which Mr. D. claimed to have taken of Mr. H. 20 to 5 about Vespertilio. Mr. H. maintained, on the contrary, he had betted the complainant 20 to 5 against Mr. Vansittart's filly.

After hearing evidence the stewards gave it as their opinion that there was a mistake between the parties, and that neither party should pay or receive.

15.-A Bet whether any Horse ever Ran a Mile in a Minute.

The following case, the subject of a bet, was submitted to the stewards :-