Betting Cases. 117 



19. The owner of a second horse claiming the bets, 

 because the winner's number did not appear on the 

 Telegraph board. 



ASCOT, 1863. Fern Hill Stakes. 



The jockey who rode Tomato weighed after the 

 usual time, and Hippolyta's number appeared on 

 the board by mistake instead of Tomato. The 

 owner of the second horse objected to Tomato 

 receiving the stakes and the bets on that ground ; 

 but in the absence of ny law to make the objection 

 valid, the stewards decided that Tomato was the 

 winner, and it was subsequently determined that 

 the proposal to transfer the bets to the second 

 horse was in violation of the 2nd Eule of Betting. 



20 Objection made after the Eace. 



Claxton, which had been scratched on the 1st 

 of August in the ' Kacing Calendar ' by his former 

 owner, appeared coloured in the Huntingdon card, 

 and was allowed to start on the representation of 

 Mr. E. Parr, that he had bought the horse on the 

 28th of July, with his engagements. Lord St. 

 Vincent subsequently declared that when he sold 

 the horse no mention was made of engagements, 

 and Mr. E. Parr having failed to produce the 



