ROYAL DESPATCH APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 285, 1 December 1924, Page 11

ROYAL DESPATCH APPEAL.

RACING CONFERENCE DECISION. JOKES AND McCARTEN. DISQUALIFICATION UPHELD. (Br Tc-lri.pi.il — ITrss As«nolllllon. I ( HKISTI'HUM H. Sunday. Judgment has bei n given in the appials lodged with I lie New Zealand Baring Conference by I". I). Jones ami JI. McCarten against the decision of the Australian Jockey I In. in dismissing their appeal* Hgain-t tic disqualification imposed upon each ot them for a period 0 f l_i months from August 11. l!i-__4, hy the stipendiary steward- acting for the Canterbury I'ark Racing t lull in the <t..te of New South Wales. The judgment states: "The appeals were presented tn us. being under rule 4 of part XXXII., but the appellants at the outset of appeal were informed that the judges would have to consider whether they should act upon the judgment of the Australian Jockey Club end proceed under rule 1 nil of that pait. They were invited to submit for the consideration of the judges any facts or reasons why this course should not be adopted. The names of the appellants have been placed on the New Zealand list of disqualifications pursuant to rule 4of part XXXII.. in consequence of the sentence of the Australian Jockey Club, but we are of opinion that tiie rule gives the judges no power to remove the disqualification imposed on the appellants, as neither of them was tbe owner nor had an interest in the horse Royal Despatch, whose running was investigated by the New South Wales racing tribunals. The last sentence of rule 4 of part XXXII.. in our opinion, implies that the disqualification imposed by any recognised club in any country may he adopted and acted upon in Xew Zealand. For the above reasons alone we think that the appeal must be dismissed. "Ws feel, however, that it is our duty to deal with the matter under rule 1 (nl of part XXXII. I'nder that rule, any person in New Zealand, or any ether covntry, who is guilty of corrupt practices, may be disqualified for life or a specified period. The appellants have been adjudged guilty of corrupt practices' within the meaning of the rules of the I Australian Jockey Club committee in Xew South Wales in connection with the running of the before-mentioned horse, and have been disqualified for 12 months. Rule .1 of the rules of racing of the Australian Jockey Club provides that any person who tak-s part in any matter coming within those rui.s should beheld to consent to b3 hound by them. The appellants have exhausted their rights of appeal under the rules of racing of the Australian Jockey Club nnd, in the result, t'-.e Australian Jockey Club, which is the final racing tribunal of the State of New South Wales, has affirmed the conviction of the appellants which now stands and is operated in New South Wales. "We feel bound to act upon nnd give effect to the decision of racing tribunals in New South Wales. Such a course is consistent with and required by the existence of separate reciprocal agreements for the enforcement of judgments and disqualifications made between turf authorities in England (inter alia) and the New Zealand Racing Conference and the Australian Jockey Club respectively. Disqualification by the Australian Jockey Club is as effective both in England and New Zealand as a conviction hy the English Jockey Club. Otherwise lhe6e reciprocal agreements would be inoperative in any individual country end in any special case at the pleasure of any one of the 30 primary racing tribunals throughout the world. "We have made application to the chairman of the Australian Jockey Club for the evidence upon which the disqualifications were based, but this appli" cation lias been refused. Such refusal would have placed us in a difficulty if it had become necessary on this appeal to review the decisions of the racing tribunals in New South Wales. We have, however, satisfied ourselves that their procedure was regular and that the appellants were given an opportunity of presenting their defences before the tribunals. We feel bound, therefore, to adopt and affirm the decision of the NewSouth Wales racing tribunals, and adjudge that the appellants committed in Xew South Wales the corrupt practice before mentioned (which also would be a corrupt practice under our rules of racing), and we must, therefore, disqualify them within New Zealand for a period of 12 months as from August 9, 1924. "The appeals are therefore dismissed, but the deposits are ordered to be refunded. It may be mentioned that the two appeals were by consent heard together. We desire to make it clear that w e ourselvea have come to no conclusion , upon tho merits of the disqualifications imposed by the New South Wales racing tribunals. In any ease we have not Md before us the material to enable us to do so. Under all the circumstances We felt that we ought to act upon the decision arrived at by tho tribunals before mentioned."' The judgment is signed by Sir George Clifford, Mr. C. P. Skcrrett, K.C., and Mr. A. p. Donnelly.