UNABLE TO RACE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18996, 18 April 1925, Page 13

UNABLE TO RACE.

m TROTTING HORSE PURCHASE* . —. EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION. • . - ■ 4' ASSOCIATION * CRITICISED, ) [by telegeaph.-—own coeeesjowdknt.] CHKISTCHUECH. Friday A trotting horso which is precluded from taking part in a race owing to a disqualification of a previous owner is a bad proposition for a purchaser, as was shown in the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr. S.M. The horse concerned was Royal Arcade, formerly owned by Charles Ireland, and now in the possession of Alfred ML Hill, of Auckland. The methods of the New Zealand Trotting Association were criticised during the hearing of the case. It was stated that the parties could not get any information from the association as to the reasons of Ireland's disqualification. Plaintiff was Alfred M. Hill, of Auckland, and defendant Charles Ireland, farmer, of Christchurch. Mr. A. W. Brown appeared for plaintiff and Mr. R. Twyneham for defendant The statement of claim set out that on July 19, 1924, plaintiff, by his agent, William Kelsey, horse trainer, of tuckland, bought from defendant the trotting horse Royal Arcade for the purpose, as was well known to the defendant, of racing the horse in trotting races. At the date of the sale the defendant had been guilty of corrupt practices within the > meaning of the rules of trotting. These rales provided that any person guiltv of a corrupt practice might l»b disqualified for any specified period or for life, and also provided that no horse of which such person is, or was at the time the offence was committed, the owner, shall be qualified to be entered, nominated, or started in any event. The defendant at the time of the sale did i.ot £ I6C, , 0S ® to the plaintiff or his agent that he had been guilty of any corrupt practice as defined by the rules of trotting. On August 11, 1924, the defendant was disqualified by the New Zealand Trotting Association for life for a corrupt practice committed on May 24. As a consequence of the disqualification of the defendant Royal Arcade, which was owned by him at the time the offence was committed, was not now qualified or allowed under the rules to be nominated, entered, or started in any event. The horse .was of no value to plaintiff for any purpose because it could not be used as a racehorse. The plaintiff had been put to loss and expense for the keep and training of Royal Arcade and other expenses totalling £25. The amount claimed was £2OO. • Evidence was given by William Kelsey as to the purchase of the horse as set out in the statement of claim. _ He said he applied to the Trotting Association for the removal of the disabilities covering Royal Arcade but the only satisfaction he could get was being told to " gQ to Irelaud." The trotting association still had the transfer form and witness' five shillings fee. The position was that permission to nominate the horse was refused, because of an alleged offence committed by Ireland before the purchase. Witness had tried to have the disabilities on horse removed but he could not ascertain tho nature of the corrupt practices. The Magistrate: It seems pretty hard that a horse under disqualification should not be allowed to b<3 sold to some one else. The horse itself is not guilty but the man. _ ... Mr. Twyneham pointed out that there was no evidence to show that Ireland had been guilty of corrupt practice. The magistrate commented on the action , of the trotting association in withholding information and suggested that a noni suit be recorded. Mr. Brown elected to take a judgment and it was given for defendant.