STATEMENTS DENIED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8182, 25 July 1912, Page 1

STATEMENTS DENIED

ORDERING OFF OF ASHTON MR IIAKDHAM REFUTES ALLEGATIONS. The question asked by Mr W. Hardham of Mr T. 11. Jones a fortnight ago, as to whether he was present at a meeting of the Wellington Referees’ Association when the matter of Ashton, the disqualified Pctoue player, was discussed, again, caino lie loro the management committee of the Wellington Rugby Union, last evening, consequent upon u letter received froip Mr Jones. 1 The text of the letter was as follows "In view of the fact that J'. Ashton’s allegation of collusion between the Referees’ Association and myself in the matter of ordering him off the field on July 6th having been disproved in evidence and subsequently denied by Mr I). McKenzie in a letter published in last Friday's ‘New Zealand Times,' 1 think it would be a gentlemanly action on Mr W. Hardham's part to make amends for the reflection cast upon mo at last week’s meeting of your union. "Tho doubt cast upon my honesty has gone forth to tho community per medium of the newspaper reports of tho inquiry, and although tho chairman of the union was good enough to state that your committee was satisfied I knew' nothing whatever about tho allegation, the latter statement was made before hearing Ashton's evidence; which Mr Hardham said would prove the ordering oil, was prearranged. As Mr Hard ham has always had a reputation for good, sportsmanship, ho.must surely see that.tho .procedure ho adopted in his.-, crose-eramination- of myself was at least unwise, and tho withdrawal should bo easy to make.’’ SIMPLY A QUESTION.

Mr Hardham said that as-far as he was aware ho made no statement to the effect that tho referees bad decided that Ashton i was to bo ordered off tho field. Ho had simply asked Mr Jones if ho was present at a meeting of, the Referees’ Association when Ashton came up for ‘ discussion. Mr Hardham denied that ho said tho affair was prearranged. He had brought the matter up, because having -heard statements respecting it, he thought tho thing should bo thrashed out in tho proper place—before the manage- i ment committee. Ho denied certain remarks which had been, published’by Mr H. McKenzie (chairman ofthe Wellington Referees’ Association).' In connection with imputations that he (tho speaker) was biassed towards tho PotonoCluh when Petono players were before the committee, Mr Hardham said ho alwaystreated Petonc players in tho same manner members of other clubs. Ho did know that Ashton was discussed at' a, meeting of tho Referees’, Association. but he never accused. .Mr .Tones of being unfair as a referee, nor had ho impugned that gentle, man’s honesty. His , opinion and Mr Jones’s differed respecting tho Ashton incident. The Petono Club never objected to Mr Jones roferceingin a match which’ they were drawn for. ‘lf he (Mr Hardham) saw an incident in a different 'light to a referee he had a right to; llis opinion. Ho was perfectly prepared to apologise to tho Referdes’ Association, either personally, or through the press, if it could bo proved that ho had said ■, that Ashton's case was prearranged. Ho L denied'the accusation absolutely—ho had only asked a question; of Mr Jones. ‘•There has been a lot of unnecessary, ink spilt in connection with this matlor," declared Mr W. Perry, who thought Mr Hardham was perfectly justified in bringing the matter before the committee. Ho moved that Mr Jones be informed that Mr Hardham had not made a. statement to the committee to the effect that tho ordering off of Ashton ; had been prearranged by the Referees Association and that Mr Hardham had no intention of questioning Mr Jones’s honesty in tho matter. . The motion was seconded by Mr B. O. Hales, who personally was of opinion that there had been a big cry about nothing. V , ■*; The resolution was carried unanimouslv after members had agreed with M» Hardham*s explanation, j