RACING APPEAL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21506, 1 June 1933, Page 13

RACING APPEAL

CASE IN SUPREME COURT REMOVAL OF PENALTY URGED JUDGE REFUSES INJUNCTION [BY TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION'] CHRISTCHURCH, Wednesday An appeal for the setting aside of a disqualification imposed on F. L. Turley, three other persons and the horse Earthquake, came before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court to-day. The plaintiff was Frederick Lovell Turley, and the defendant was tbe executive committee of the New Zealand Racing Conference. On July 4, 1932, the Grcymouth District Committee held an inquiry into certain matters pertaining to the ownership of the horse Earthquake. The committee's finding on that occasion was that it could not see that any breach of the Rules of Racing had been committed. On September 30, 1932, the committee held a further inquiry, after which it declared "That the evidence as to ownership of Earthquake discloses some grave doubts, but the committee is of opinion that it is not sufficiently conclusive to prove that the present owner of the horse is other than Mrs. M. M. Turley, but, nevertheless, the contradictory statements made by Fenton deserve severe censure."

Finding ol Appeal Judges The executive of the New Zealand Racing Conference directed that an appeal should be made against the decision of the Greymouth Committee. The matter was referred back to tho Greymouth Committee, which met again on November 29, and affirmed its previous decision. The appeal Judges then proceeded with the hearing, and their finding was "that F. L. Turley, D. W. Morgan, F. L. Fenton and Mrs. M. M. Turley have been guilty of corrupt practices under the Rules of Racing, and the penalty we impose is that F. L. Turley and the horse Earthquake, D. W. Morgan, F. L. Fenton and Mrs. M. M. Turley, be disqualified for a period of one year from December 19, 1932." His Honor's judgment to-day was as follows: —"This claim is made by a racehorse owner, or, rather, a man who used to own a racehorse, a man interested in racing. He is proceeding against the members of the governing body of racing in New Zealand ahd wants an injunction in respect of the 12 months' disqualification imposed on him and others in connection with a horse called Earthquake. At one time plaintiff owned the horse. The suggestion is that he got into financial trouble and disposed of the horse to keep it from a creditor. "A Negative Conclusion" "It is suggested that he put the horse under the name of a 'dummy' owner and that plaintiff's wife and another man were, also involved. Three judges tried him and convicted him of corrupt practices. The matter was first of all inquired into by the committee of the Greymouth Racing Club at the; request of the governing authorities. They were not overwhelmed with the information available or the frankness of the people concerned. They came to a negative conclusion. Later Mr. Ward, course inspector, who was not satisfied, pursued further inquiries. "It was alleged that the man registered as owner of the h'orse was unemployed and on relief. "When questioned he said he had nothing to do with tbe horse. Under a procedure indicated by the rules, Mr. Ward instituted the further proceedings. The judges were a]>pointed. At the first hearing they were of opinion that due notice had not been given, so the matter was referred back to the Greymouth Committee. Then the final inquiry was held. It was stawd that plaintiff and others concerned were frank, but in my opinion the reverse was the case.

Judges' Decision Endorsed "The argument that the matter must be closed when first the Greymouth Committee came to a decision (and it was in effect a 'not proved' decision) is not borne out by anything in the rules. The only way to upset the judgment would be to prove that there was something in it corrupt or improper. All people who engage in a sport should abide by the decisions of the body governing the sport. "I do not come to a different conclusion from the judges. I cordially agreo with the soundness of their decision. Plaintiff and those associated with him must have been perfectly well aware what the inquiry was about, and what it meant. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to defend himself." The injunction was refused, and judgment was entered for defendant with costs £39 18s.