ANOTHER APPEAL

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 90, 16 April 1923, Page 8

ANOTHER APPEAL

In,the matter of the appeal of S. lies. Boles (owner of the horse Tama-a-roa at the time of the Ohinemuri Jockey Club's : Meeting in March, 1921), against the decision of the Auckland District Committee in disqualifying the said S. Les. Boles for the term of three years from the 15th March, 1923,: for corrupt practices under the Rules of Racing, the judgment is as under:—

The Auckland District Committee on the 15th March, 1923, found that the^ appellant had committed two acts of corrupt practices und"er the Rules of Racing ; and disqualified him for the term of three years from the date of the decision. The offences were:—

(a) That the appellant on the 12th March, 1921, at Paeroa during the meeting of the Ohinemuri Jockey Club, corruptly proposed to the licensed apprentice jockey, R. W. M'Tavish, who was under engagemenct to ride the horse Tama-a-roa, owned by the appellant, that he, the said jockey, should pull the horse in the St. Patrick's Handicap, or prevent him from winning the said race; and (b) That the appellant on or about the 11th day: of March, 1921, at Te Aroha, corruptly proposed to Richard Hannon, licensed trainer' and master of the licensed apprentice jockey, R. W. M'Taviah, that he should allow the said R. W. MTavisK to pull the said horse in the St. Patrick's Handicap to be run at the meeting of the Ohinemuri Jockey Club at Paeroa, or prevent the said horse from winning the said race. ' v

From this decision the appellant has appealed to the conference, and we have been appointed by the president to be the judges to. determine the appeal.The incidents which are the subject matter of the two charges are closely related to each other. It waS urged before us by the appellant that the evidence adduced before the Auckland District Committee was wholly insufficient to justify the finding of the committee. It must be conceded to. the appellant that the charges brought against him were belated. The offences were charged as having been committed by him in March, 1921, and the first investigation into the matter at which the appellant attended took place in January, 1923. In view of this_ circumstance, we have thought it right to examine the evidence in support of the charges with the greatest care and caution, and to ask ourselves whether the evidence was such as justified the District Committee in arriving at a conclusion adverse to the appellant. _ We have, keeping these principles in mind, made a careful examination of the evidence, and considered and weighed the arguments and contentions which the appellant has "adduced before us. We have arrived at the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to justify the decision of the District Committee that the appellant had- committed the corrupt practices with which he wag charged. We ourselves have been contrained by the evidence to arrive 1 at the same conclusion on the facts. ' It is, in our opinion, impossible to disregard the clear corroboration of M'Tavish's evidence afforded both by the direct evidence and by the circumstances surrounding the action of the appellant in connection with the riding and running of Tama-a-roa on the day in question. We could not discover any reasonable ground for the suggestion that the appellant was in this matter the victim of a conspiracy to fix upon him by false evidence the misconduct in question. We, therefore, affirm the decision of the Auckland District Committee, and dismiss the appeal. We further order that the deposit,of £20 be forfeited, and applied by the conference in or towards payment of the costs of the appeal.