RANFURLY SHIELD DECISION

Evening Star, Issue 19617, 25 July 1927, Page 13

RANFURLY SHIELD DECISION

HAWKE'S BAY DISSATISFIED WILL SEEK SUPREME COURT RULING [Special to the ‘Stab.’] WELLINGTON, July 23. The Hawke’s Bav Union intends taking the Ranfnrly Shield dispute to the Supreme Court. . When Mr Doan (chairman t ot the Management Committee ot the New Zealand Rugby Union) had drafted hi. motion dispossessing Hawke s Bay oi the shield on Saturday the Hawke s Bay delegate (Mr- Norman M Kenzie) ask'd: “ What is the penalty tor this under the rules of the New Zealand Rugby Union?” . ' Mr Dean replied that the Management Committee had power to deal with any matters in any way it thought lit. . , . Mr M'Kenzie: A union disobeying the rules of the New Zealand Union may be suspended from membership or may bo expelled. . , . Mr Dean; What bearing has this on. the matter? ■■ i Mr M'Kenzie: iVo are disobeying the rule of tlie New Zealand Union. • Mr H. Leith: You aro not disobeying it. You broke it. Mr M'Kenzie: What s the difference? , . Mr E. Wylie: You erred m ignoiallMr M'Kenzie: We disobeyed. (Laughter.) . Mr Leith i Yon have broken it m ignorance, and you must pay the penally for it. ' . Mr M'Konzio: We won t bo the only ono to pay tor it. This will open a wide field. ... Mr E. Hornig: It amounts to this: these unions don’t know the New Zealand Union’s rules, and their own are different. . . Mr T. A. Fletcher; I think that they are like most of ns here. Mr M'Kenzie: Our rules were passed by the New Zealand Rugby Union. Mr A. C. “iCitto: If this is earned," have Hawke’s Bay the right to challenge again? . Mr Doan: That rests with us. Mr Leith: Our rules say that no union shall challenge for tho shield more than once in a season. Mr Fletcher: What right of appeal is there against this' decision? Mr Dean: They can go to the Appeal Council. Mr M'Kenzie: Yon need not be afraid of us challenging again, gentlemen. When the resolution was carried, there being only Mr Muljany’s voice heard against it, Mr M'Kenzie said: “ Well. I. may tell yon, gentlemen, that my union bus decided to go to the Supremo Court _ for- an injunction against this decision.’’ Air Wylie: Can yon do that? Mr M’Kenzie: We can. Wo are both incorporated societies. Mr Wylie: Well, I think that yon should exhaust your right of appeal first. ' Mr M'Kenzie: In any case, until this thing is decided tho shield stays where it is. Legal opinion in Wellington is that the Bay has a considerable chance of success if it takes the case to the Supreme Court. “ Notwithstanding the opinion of the chairman of tho New Zealand Rugby Union that legal domicile and Rugby domicile arc two different things, it is difficult to believe that the court can look at the matter from other than the legal standpoint,” said a leading counsel to-day. On tho report which I have seen there seems no lack of evidence that Barclay was certainly domiciled in Hawke’s Bay, and that he never left the province without tho intention of returning to New Zealand. The Rugby Union’s rule also is not explicit, and does not seem to demand that a player must bo resident within the boundaries of a union for three weeks immediately prior to a lepresentativc match in which he takes, partj but merely that lie should have had his home in the piovince for three weeks. Il the Ray brings action on an originating summons to obtain an interpretation of the rule it will be a Banco matter. No special fixture will be needed tor the case, and the whole thing will be decided at a very early date. If, however, tho Bay elects to proceed for a mandamus—that is, for an injunction against the Now Zealand Union’s decision that the Ranfnrly Shield must bo returned to WTiirarapa—then the case will have to be set down, and it will he some lifne before the matter is decided.”