PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED, 355 



arid Whinfell Meeting, in October 1863, in accordance with Rule 

 63. A letter was read from Mr. Brougham, detailing the nature 

 of the case, from which it appeared that * Blooming Daisy ' ran a 

 ' no course ' according to the judge's decision, the reason for such 

 decision being that a third dog, belonging to the owner of her 

 competitor, had joined in immediately after the slip. ' Kitty 

 Nicholson ' was consequently disqualified, and the judge having 

 given his opinion that, according to Rule 32, * Blooming Daisy ' 

 had done sufficient to allow her to meet her next antagonist with- 

 out running a bye, she ran the deciding course under protest. 

 The question, therefore, submitted to the Club was, in effect, 

 whether this was regular, or whether the stakes ought to go to 

 ' Black Ball,' who was defeated by ' Blooming Daisy ' in the 

 deciding course. After some discussion it was resolved that, ' in 

 the opinion of this meeting, " Blooming Daisy " had done enough, 

 in accordance with Rule 32, to run the deciding course without 

 running a bye.' 



Case 17. An appeal from Mr. Chesshyre against Mr. Leigh ton 

 receiving the stakes called the Oakley Stakes, for puppies, at the 

 Cirencester Club Meeting in January last, won by his dog 

 ( Lurlei,' in consequence of running a bye with an old dog with- 

 out the consent of the stewards. The facts of the case were 

 admitted to be, that three dogs only being left in the stake, Mr. 

 Leighton's ' Lurlei ' was entitled to the bye, which she ran with 

 an old dog without the consent of the stewards being asked. She 

 subsequently beat Mr. Chesshyre's ' Charles III.,' but on that 

 gentleman's making the discovery that she had run the bye with an 



A A 2 



