THE STITCHBIRD FINDING
According to a Press Association message from Hastings, the actual report of the Stitchbird case was as follows:—"A, protest entered by G. Neich, owner of Contract, against H. G. Hawkins, owner of Stitchbird, on the grounds that Stitchbird was cared for and trained by H. 0. Barnett, was dealt with by the judicial committee, and after hearing evidence the committee found:—(l) That a breach of rules 142 and 14S had' been committed, in that a person who was not eligible was cmployed in the care and was in control of the training of Stitchbird; and (2) that under rule 144 (1) Stitchbird be disqualified for the race and the. judge's placings altered, Contract to be placed first, Sunder second, and Bothwell third."
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19360616.2.154.3
Bibliographic details
Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 141, 16 June 1936, Page 13
Word Count
125THE STITCHBIRD FINDING Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 141, 16 June 1936, Page 13
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Post. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in