PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED. 349 



The stewards, however, decided to the contrary, maintaining that it 

 was a fresh stake, but instead of disturbing the original order of 

 running on the card, and making a fresh draw, they adhered to 

 the card, giving the bye to Mr. Evans, and compelling Mr. 

 Eandell and Mr. Price each to run their saplings together. Mr. 

 Eandell held that they were on the horns of a dilemma, and 

 should either have guarded his dogs if they kept to the card, or 

 else they should have drawn afresh. He asked the club, first 

 whether the decision of the stewards was right, and, secondly, if 

 wrong, what course ought to be adopted to make it right ? After 

 a short discussion, it was carried, ' that, in the opinion of the 

 National Club, the stewards were wrong in their decision, inasmuch 

 as that the cup itself formed part of the original entry of nineteen 

 dogs, for which no new classification was necessary, and in which, 

 therefore, two dogs belonging to the same owner were entitled to 

 be guarded. And the National Club is further of opinion that the 

 cup ought to be returned to the stewards, to be run for again by 

 the five winners qualified under the National Club Eules as 

 advertised.' 



Case 10. A statement was made by Mr. Blanshard of the 

 facts relating to the decision of the Coquetdale stewards in 

 March 1862, compelling him to run his dog 'Baffler' single- 

 handed for the Coquetdale Cup, to be run for by the four winners 

 of the other stakes. In this instance there had been a fresh draw, 

 and the National Club rules had been departed from so far by the 

 only party interested, as to allow of Mr. Blanshard's two dogs 

 being guarded, his third nomination (' Meteor') not being his own 



