146 HANDBOOK OF THE TUKF. 



Sorrel George, in a ."^ISO purse, paying an entrance of ^30. 

 The defence was that the plaintiff did not comply with the 

 rules, as his horse paced instead of trotted, and could not 

 have won had he trotted instead of paced. Verdict for plain- 

 tiff. Defendants appealed, and contended that the contract 

 was void as against public policy. Only two points were con- 

 sidered : 1st. Was the contract void or illegal under common 

 law. 2d. AVas there sufficient evidence of fraud on the part of 

 the plaintiff to avoid the decision of the judges of the race in 

 his favor, by allowing him to keep m the race. Finding of 

 the full bench : 1st. The speeding of horses is not illegal, as 

 the Legislature would not allow corporate bodies to do that 

 which was against the policy of the State. 2d. No case is 

 made out for setting aside the decisions of the judges at the 

 time of the race. The plaintiff's horse fairly won three of the 

 five heats. The only doubt as to the right of the plaintiff to 

 the money, is that in the third heat, (when the plaintiff's horse 

 did not win), he was so managed by his driver that he violated 

 the rules governing the race, and should have been excluded 

 from further competition for the reward. There is nothing in 

 evidence to show that the judges were, in duty bound, to 

 exclude the plaintiff's horse ; and the decision of the judges 

 cannot be overruled in order to give the reward to some other 

 competitor, except by showing a clear case of fraud. In the 

 third heat the plaintiff's horse paced most of the way, but 

 admitting this, it was within the discretion of the judges to 

 permit him to go again. This discretionary power to exclude 

 the horse must be exercised by the judges before the next heat 

 is run, and having exercised that power and permitted the 

 horse to go again and win the race, nothing but the clearest 

 case of fraud, on the part of the owner of the horse, should be 

 allowed to set aside the decision of the judges of the race. No 

 fraud was shown, and the decision of the judges of the race 

 must stand. Judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed. 



Books of veterinary practice cannot be read to a jury in 

 argument. In the case of Washburn vs. Cuddihy, in ]Massa- 

 chusetts Reports, 8 Gray, p. 430, 1861, counsel for the plain- 

 tiff' proposed to read from Dadd's "Veterinary Surgery," a 

 description of the habit of cribbing, in horses, as a better 

 mode of showing the jury Avhat cribbing was, but the opposing 

 counsel objected, and the court sustained the objection. In 

 sustaining the objection. Judge Briggs said that where such 

 books are thus offered, they are, in effect, used as evidence, 

 and the substantial objection is that they are statements want- 

 ing the sanction of an oath ; and the statement thus proposed 



