RACING APPEALS

Evening Star, Issue 15478, 28 April 1914, Page 2

RACING APPEALS

[Per United Press Association.]

WELLINGTON, April 28. The following is the decision of the New Zealand Racing Conference judges in the matter of the appeal by Jockey Club against the decision of the Wanganui District Committee, that the Wanganui Jockey Club be instructed to pay th© stakes in the Westmere Hurdle Race, run on February 26, to W. G. Trask, the nominator of The Rover, after the expiration of the time limit for an appeal to be lodged with the New Zealand Racing Conference;—“ We _ are of opinion that at the time of the disqualification of A. M. Wright, on August 17, 1912, he was the owner, in the rules. We think that, during the continuance of such disqualification, any horse 6f which he was the owner, within the meaning of the definition at the time of the offence for ' or in respect of which he was disqualified was committed, is not qualified to be entered for or start for any race (rule 3, part 33). We are unable to give any more limited meaning., to the wprd owner in this rule than’ the meaning 1 given to it in the' definition clause. It was contended that the Wanganui Jockey Club were not entitled to bring this appeal, but we are of opinion that this objection must be over-rmed. We therefore affirm the decision of the Wanganui Jockey Club, and determine that the horse. The Rover, was not qualified to be entered for or start in the Westmere Hurdle Race. We make no order as to costs.”

The following is the decision of the Racing Conference judges in the matter of the appeal by J. Collins, owner of the horse Parawai, against the decision of the Auckland District Committee upholding the decision of the Rotorua Jockey Club in disqualifying the horse for the Farewell Handicap, run on February 11, for having weighed out Ub short : —“ We think it desirable to state the facts on which we determine this appeal. They are: (a) That the stewards of the Rotorua Jockey Club failed properly to elect a Judicial Committee, under rule 1, part 5, and that the objection to Parawai being awarded the race was determined by the stewards of the club; (b) that Parawai's weight, as adjusted by the handicapper, was 7.8; that the owner of Parawai intentionally weighed out for the race at 7.2, and that the jockey of Parawai, after the race, weighed in at 7,2. This statement of fact is not disputed hy the owner of Parawai. It is clear that the stewards of the Rotorua Jockey Club failed in their duty by not properly electing a Judicial Committee. Had such a committee been elected, the objection in the present case would have been determinable by such committee, and the decisions and acts of such Judicial Committee would have been deemed the decisions and acts of the stewards of the Rotorua Jockey Club. Nevertheless, their failure to elect a Judicial Committee does not, in our opinion, preclude the stewards pf the club from determining the objection, under rule I of part IV, and rule 7, of part XXXI., The jurisdiction conferred upon a Judicial Committee is a delegated jurisdiction from the stewards, and the exercise of that jurisdiction by the Judicial Committee has the effect of a decision of the stewards. We think, therefore, that where, for any reason, the stewards have not delegated to a Judicial Committee their jurisdiction to hear disputes, their own jurisdiction to hear ana determine objections remains. We are further of opinion that we, the judges appointed under the rules, have power in this matter, in default of the appointment of a Judicial Committee, to make such order as to us may seem meet. To hold the contrary would produce great absurdities. The refusal or failure of the stewards of any club to appoint a Judicial Committee at any race meeting would have the result of leaving no machinery provided for the enforcement of the rules pf pacing, or for the punishment of corrupt or illegal practices at such meeting. We are of opinion that Parawai {should, ijj the race in question, have weighed out at .13, We think that the proper pf correct weight of Parawaj was 7.8, Jess an apprentice allowance of 51b, under rule 3 ol part XIX. Tim horse should* therefore, haw weighed put and carried 7-3, It i? admitted that she only weighed out and carried 7.2. Wo think that the allowance of 11b, under rule 9 of part XXIVj can only bo claimed or allowed where the horse has weighed out and has carried the proper or correct weight, and cannot be claimed or allowed from the proper or declared weight when weighing out. For these reasons we are of opinion that Parawai did not weigh out and carry the proper, weight, and was properly disqualified from whfflißg the race, and that the appeal should be, and it is hereby dismissed. We have determined not to allow ike coats of this appeal to the Rotorua Jockey Club, for the reason that the club woe in default in not electing a Judicial Committee for the race meeting, and for the reason that the clerk of scales should not have passed the jockey’s weight at 7.8 as. correct, although we are of opinion that such passing does net relieve the owner of the horse from the responsibility of seeing that his horse carried the proper weight in the race.”