TROTTING Stella Frost Appeal Is Dismissed

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32018, 19 June 1969, Page 5

TROTTING Stella Frost Appeal Is Dismissed

The appeal by the Balclutha owner-trainer, L. H. Tilson, against the interpretation of conditions governing the Autumn Free-for-all at Forbury Park on April 12, was dismissed in a decision released yesterday.

The appeal judges ordered that Mr Tilson’s deposit be refunded and made no order regarding the costs of any party to the appeal. The hearing of the appeal was opened on May 12 and adjourned until May 29. The appeal judges were Messrs E. A. Lee (chairman), E. Somers and W. M. Bolt. Mr Tilson, whose horse, Stella Frost, finished third, was represented by Mr R. J. Gilbert, of Dunedin. Mr B. McClelland appeared for the New Zealand Trotting Conference. Mr J. G. Leggat, appeared for Mr A. H. Carmichael, of Auckland, the owner of Chequer Board, the winner of the race at Forbury Park, and Mr J. A. Donaldson, of Tmwald, the owner-trainer of. James, which finished second. The appeal was against the decision of the president of the New Zealand Trotting Conference (Mr A. J. Nicoll) in approving a change of the programme of the Forbury Park Trotting Club for April 12, whereby he authorised the alteration of the conditions of the Autumn Free-for-all. Appeal Grounds •The grounds of Mr Tilson’s appeal were: (1) That the approval of the president of the conference to such alteration after nomination and acceptance had been declared was wrongful.

-(2) That as a result of the president’s decision, horses assessed at better than 2:11 were allowed to start. (3) That no proper notification of the change of programme was advertised. !(4) That Stella Frost ran third in the race and that the first two horses were both assessed at 2:10. (5) That he had suffered loss in that his horse Stella Frost, was entitled to the first prize money, being the first horse assessed at 2:11 or slower to be placed in the race. “It is therefore necessary to determine what in fact was done, by the president,” says the finding. “In the first place he told Mr Barnes (the president of the Forbury Park Club) on the telephone that the handicapping committee had agreed and he ruled, as president of the conference, that horses assessed at faster than 2:11 were eligible to start, and he asked to have the matter put

in writing. “The letter written by Mr Barnes referred to rules relating to accidental ommissions, which we do not think

are applicable, and to Rule 218 which gives the president the power to approve the alteration of a programme. Ruling “The letter written by Mr Rowley (secretary of the conference), at the direction of the president, was a statement or ruling by the president on the question of what horses were entitled to start in the race, and in his evidence the president was emphatic that he was not altering or approving any alteration in a programme, but was simply stating which horses, in his view, were entitled to start. “It was argued for the appellant that the true construction of the conditions of the race were such as to limit the race to horses assessed at 2:11 and 2:12, and that when horses assessed at 2:10 and faster were permitted to start, there was therefore an alteration in the programme. “We are unable to accept this argument Whatever may be the true construction of the programme, no alteration was in fact made by the club. What we have to determine is whether the president approved a change of programme. He simply ruled: "That horses assessed on tighter marks than 2:11 are eligible to start in the Autumn Free-for-all. Free-for-all conditions must apply to this race.’ “In other words ‘on the conditions of the race as expressed, I rule the horses nominated can start.’ “We have considered carefully the letter of April 11

by the president which was expressed to be in confirmation of a telephone call in which he ruled on or interpreted the conditions of the race. “He claimed to act under

the Rules of Trotting and the conditions of the programme. The president did not approve any alteration under Rule 218 or consent to any alteration or amendment under the conditions of the programme. He gave a ruling and in his evidence said he relied on Rule 6. We doubt if he has the power to act under Rule 6, but the appeal was not an address to this point, and we do not pursue it Our determination does not rule on the merits of the matters in issue. Risk Taken “If we are wrong in the view we have taken that the president did not approve an alteration, we would have said that had he done so such approval was warranted in the circumstances. It would have been quite unreal to have withheld such approval. It is to be remembered that a number of horses assessed at-2:10 and faster were nominated and accepted. It is clear that prior to the race Mr Tilson made no objection to these horses. starting. In our view he took whatever risk was involved.” The decision comments as follows on the point that no proper notification of the change of programme was advertised: “If there was a change this was a matter for the club, which is not a party to this appeal.” The . judges also commented on the preparation of race programmes, saying that clubs should ensure that this work was performed in close liaison with the handicapper. “It is of the greatest importance, too, that the proposed programme be in the hands of conference officials in ample time for adequate scrutiny. If these recommendations were followed, difficulties such as occurred here could be eliminated.”