Untitled

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 112, 17 June 1914, Page 6

The Christehurch Sports Club has its own way of dealing with offenders who are considered. io . have transgressed the rules and regulations of the club. This was well demonstrated in its rather Gilbertian court held last evening, when it hajed W. Ireland before it, ealmly and quite Seriously advised him that it had decided to disqualify him, and then proceeded to cross-examine the accused, who was charged with having been party to a "frame-up" in connection with a recent preliminary with N. Vernall. So far as the matter, has been given publicity, the committee was influenced in its action by rumours of " fake'' prior to the .contest, and also by what came under the personal observations of members during the preliminary. If it had actual formal : evidence before it, the fact was. not made public, and in adopt : ing the; extraordinary, procedure of finding a defendant guilty first and proceeding to call evidence afterwards, the committee constituted itself both court and, witnesses. In the case of Vernall, who, too, was disqualified before he could defend himself,: the • disqualification was withdrawn, and the lad exonerated. Ireland, who was certainly not in sound condition on the. occasion in question, may have been guilty of all that the'committee charged against but lie was entitled to show cause in the usiial way befWei being summarily dealt with 5 . We' can sympathise with the club in its endeav6ur : to keep the sport clean and above-board, and if Ireland really was so guilty as the committee thought, the life'sentence'Was not vindictive. But the methods' adopted fey the court in this case were distinctly loose. The club would be well advised in the future, when it has to make such enquiries, to conduct such along conventional lines — the defendant should be allowed to give and produce evidence before sentence is pronounced. The danger that is possible where other methods are used is illustrated by the fact that in Vernall's case the committee rescinded its first decision and cleared the defendant of any complicity in the matter. But no niatter hoW ioilaek a. case appears, no tribuiai 1 ' is justified inj prejudging a defendant—the 'latter must be given full opportunity' Ijo state;, bis. , qide of; th# qpestion. '