A TROTTING APPEAL.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18347, 2 April 1925, Page 12

A TROTTING APPEAL.

IMPORTANT DECISION,

The appeal of the Grcymouth Trotting Club to the New Zealand Trotting Conference against the ruling of the New Zealand Trotting Association in connexion with the Wilkes case was heard in Cliristchurch last week, the judges being Messrs H. F. Nlcoll, C. M. Ollivier, and B. S. [rwin. The following is the full text of their judgment:— . "In the matter of an appeal under the New Zealand Rules of Trotting by the Greymouth Trotting Club against a decision of the New Zealand Trotting Association, embodied in & resolution of the Association passed on the 11th day of February, 3925'. - ""We the* threo Appeal Judges, duly appointed under Rule 24 of the Rules of Trotting to hear and determine the said appoaT, having heard Mr Kitchinghnm (representing the Greymouth Trotting Club), and. Messrs Selig and Williams (representing tjio New Zealand Trotting Association)^,and having'carefully considered tho arguments adduced, find as follows:~

"(1) The decision, of the New Zealand Trotting Association as conveyed in tho letter o£ the secretary of the Association to tlie Greymoutli Trotting Club, dated the 12th February, 1925, ■was that 'Allowing disqualified persons to take part at your meeting was a contravention of the Rules.' "(2) Tho notice of appeal sets out; 'That the New Zealand Trotting Association erroneously decided that the Greymoutli Trotting Club had contravened the Rules of Trotting by allowing horses owned by L. F. Berkett and W.- B. L. Pascoe to start at its meeting.' "It is to bo regretted that the notice of appeal dow not actually cover the decision como to by the Association, but the representatives of the Association appearing beforo us did not take this poiiit and contented themselves with answering the appellant club's argument that tho horses were eligible tp ; start ~.at tho Greymouth Clubfs Meeting; "The facta shortly ar'ei—

'' (1) The horses Imprint, driven by L. F. Berkett, and Some Wilkes, driven by' W. B. L. Pascoe, ran first and socond in tlie Westport Trotting Club's Handicap Trot ou the 27th December, 1924. "(2) Immediately after the race a protest was lodged by W. B. L, Pascoe against the winner Imprint on the ground of Inconsistency. "(3) The Judicial Committee of the Westport Trotting Club enquired into such protest and tho performances of Some Wilkes and disqualified Imprint and Soma Wilkejs for the race.

" (4) Subsequently in tho evening of the same day the said Judicial Committee disqualified tho said L. F. Berkett and B. L. ' Pascoo for six months.

"(5) Against this decision the said L. F. Berkett and W. B. L. Pascoe appealed to the New Zealand Trotting Association, and the said Association, after hearing the said appeals on the 11th Fcbruarj-, 1925, dismissed each of the said appeals. "(6) On the 29th December, 1924, tlie Committeo of the Greymoutli Trotting Club informed L. F. Berkett and W. B. L. Pascoe that their horses would l>e oligible to start at the Greymoutli Club's Meeting, commencing 011 December 31st. but that neither of these men could riie or drive, and the said L. F. Berkett and W. B. L. Pascoe took their horses to Greymoutli, where the horses competed successfully. Both Berkett and Pascoe were, to the knowledge of the Greymouth Club, present on the course during tho meeting. "To meet the obvious difficulty as to the wording of the appeal being at variance with the actual decision come to by tho Association, we propose to apply ourselves to answering the following two questions; "(1) Was there contravention of Bule ' 21G by the Greymouth .Trotting Club by allowing the two disqualified men to' enter and remain on the course in the circumstances?

"(2) Were tho horses of the two disqualified men eligible to start at the Greymouth Meeting in view of the facts abovo stated?

"We have no hesitation in answering tlie first question in the affirmative. "The second question was very fully argued by the representatives of tho Association and of the Greymouth Club, and we have given full and grave consideration to the arguments adduced. We can find nothing in the Rules of Trotting which would make these horses ineligible to start at the Greymoutli Tho Association relied upon Eules 315 and 341. We find that liule 341 only applies to persons, and tho horses owned or controlled by persons, whose namejj' appear in the list of disqualifications in the Official Calendar. The horses, therefore, not having been disqualified by the Westport Club, wcro

not disqualified by reason of the t• isqualification of the owners until the names of the owners appeared in Mm list of disqualifications in the Oilicril Calendar. As the horses concerned were not disqualified by the Westport Club Rule 315 has 110 bearing on the question. It may be that the Association has for many years acted upon the opposite reading of the Rules, and it may be that the Rules require anion .1ment, but our duty is to interpret the Rules as they stand. We unanimously answer the second question also m the affirmative.

We order and adjudge the sum of £2O deposited by the appellant Club be repaid to the Club, and further that each party to the appeal (i.e.. the New Zealand Trotting Association aiul the Greymouth Trotting Club) pay its own expenses of appeal and that each of the said parties pay half the expenses of the Conference in connexion with the appeal, amounting in all to £8 10s. "(Signed) H. IV Isieoll, Chairman, C. Morton Ollivier and B. S. Irwin, Appeal Judges."