NOTES ON NEWS.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10043, 23 May 1898, Page 2

NOTES ON NEWS.

Th_-^e-cent-Harriß-Holmes-Jacl—on disqualification caused a sort of sensation in sporting circles in Christchurch when it became known on Wednesday morning last. It was only the week before that the running of Mr Harris's Seabrook at Rangiora had been enquired into and satisfactorily disposed of. Qfi_top of this the two years' disqualificationoy the Ashburton Racing Club in connection "with Crescent's running was like firing a bombshell into the racing camp —it created a bit of a consternation. Mr Harris at once made a sworn declaration that he did not own Crescent, though he nominated the gelding from Christchurch for events at Ashc-irlon. -".hat grounds tue Ashburton Club have for the disqualification of Hnriis will tome out in due course, when the Canterbury Jockey Club, to which tribunal the country club has sent its verdict for endorsement, deals with the matter. We shall then know how far Mr Harris has identified himself with Crescent's running. In the meantime the disqualification operate only on the Ashburton Club's course. As Mr -..uriis ia a prominent figure in trotting circle--—being president of the Lancaster Park A.T.C. and a steward of the Canterbury T.C. —his disfjualification and its effect, m far as liis status as a trotting owner is concerned, hns been much canvassed in trotting circles. 'i*ie trotting authorities have power to consider _uch racing cases under Rule 121. dealing wit- corrupt practices and disqualifications. At this stage, however, it will only be fair to withhold comment until the matter is disposed of by the sfuperior racing court.

A charge in connection with a recent case of alleged foul riding in England seems interesting enough to, at this distance, refer to in this column. It appears from a letter, written by the father of the rider who was charged with the foul riding, that the offence was alleged to have taken .place at the Rugby Hunt meeting la*t month; that the case was heard by the local stewards, on-> of whom, and who took a leading part in the hearing, was one Captain Beatty, the trainer of the winner, and also training for a Mr Powell, who brought forward the charge and was the only r>ne to give evidence, though there were two other riders taking part in the race whose evidence might possibly have placed a very different light upon the case. This reads something like what we have seen stated in connection witlf the adjudication in more than one trotting club enquiry ill New Zealand, and is a state of thingß that was much resented by the'lad's father, who wrote:—"l think all cases of foul riding—certainly the most serious offences that can possioly be committed under National Hunt Rules—should in any case be referred to the N.H. Stewards, before whom my son would only be too pleased to appear and have the case decided upon it 3 merits, whatever the result might be." The duties of stewards and questions of fact crop up here, and in referring to the case, one of the Old Country's best authorities, Mr John Corlett, thus writes in his paper, the "Sporting Times" :—"Not long ago wo drew attention to shortcomings in our racing system, more especially in connection with the conduct of stewards, particularly under Grand National rules, in the hearing of objections and their neglect of even the most elementary rules in taking evidence. . . . The letter [above referred to—Ed. Referee.] reveals such a serious state of affairs that if the statements contained in it are correct it behoves the stewards of the Grand National Hunt Committee to take action in the matter. We may remark, however, with regard to this, that we do not agree that questions of foul riding should be referred to the National Hunt Stewards for inquiry. They relate essentially to matters of fact and not of law, and therefore are for the local stewards to determine. At the same time, we have a right to ask that the local stewards shall bring intelligence and fair play into their methods, in this case there does not appear to have been either the one or the other."

You hear occasionally of the "funny ways" some owners have of carrying on their racing operations. In connection with a recent country meeting in New Zealand friends of an owner tried, about ten minutes after the time set down for a race\to start, to back his horse for it with the layers of the odds at the metropolis, who declined to do business. It could therefore not be said that the " connections of the stable " did not make efforts to back the horse, which, however, did not win. The one that did paid a fair size dividend, and the owner of the aforementioned other horse (which it wall afterwards shrewdly suspected was not " on the job") and his friends had a very nice amount on him, "on the quiet" dontcherknoW, at various centres of totalisator betting. But had there been an enquiry into the running of the one supposed to be "out for an airing," could not the owner have brought up his friends to "swear" that they tried to back his horse with more than one layer of the odds, and that some of the backing was for himself, who, of course, had a pound o-ttwo on him in the machine, but did not want to shorten the dividend by placing the lot there. Talk about the ways of the heathen Chinee 1