JUDGING AT THE METROPOLITAN SHOW.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXI, Issue 15494, 21 December 1910, Page 3

JUDGING AT THE METROPOLITAN SHOW.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In the “ New Zealand Times' 1 of December 12 I saw a letter from Mr Pemberton, secretary of tho Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association, which ho writes under direction to correct a report of the draught, horse judging at tho Ganterburv' Show which appeared in the “ New Zealand Times” of November 14. Mr Pemberton says:— ; ‘ Tlio president informed the stewards in charge that he had appointed Mr Andrew as referee for the day, and that - Air Andrew was to remain in tlio ring, but not to take part in tlio judging, except as referee. The referee only acted in two classes, and did not not in the first class, as stated in your report.” Clearly Mr Pemberton has been badly informed of what did occur at the draught horse judging ring. Mr Andrew was first called into tho three-year-old colt class. He certainly acted in the three-year-old filly class. In both cases lie officiated as referee. But how did ho act in the yearling filly class? Is it not a notorious fact that Mr Blair and he werp in consultation from tlio time the fillies were lined up. and Mr Mitchel apart by himself? Mr Ormond, who was with me at tho ring side, not being acquainted with either of tho three, thought Air Mitchel was the referee, waiting to see if his services would bo required in the . event of the other two disagreeing. I can assure you Air Ormond could not credit such irregular proceedings being permitted, and after a time he left the ring in disgust. From your report of tlie committee mooting of the Canterbury Association on December 7, it was evident that the president was as badly informed oi what took place as his secretary. But teeing that I wrote Mr Stevenson on December 10 regarding his statements (or I should more aptly term them his misstatements) at that meoting, and wired him to-day, I refrain from comment at this stage, awaiting his reply. One matter, however, is worth attention. Why this hysterical anxiety to protect Mess:?? Blair and Andrew? Is Mr J. D. Mitchel not entitled to equal protection from insult? If so, allow mo to recommend the president of the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association to ascertain how Air Mitchel considered lie was treated as a duly appointed judgo. _ It seems incredible that the executive wore tlio only people in ignorance of it. At least the “ Te-echo ” of this shameful treatment was easily enough heard without any Press report. But I obseiwe in Mr Pemberton’s letter that his instructions did not embrace any treatment that Air Mitchel was subjected to.-—I am, etc., WALTER P. ARCHIBALD, AJanager Aire J. D. Ormond. Hawke’s Bay, December 17.