RACING INQUIRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26708, 1 March 1948, Page 2

RACING INQUIRY

ALLEGATIONS OF MISLEADING EVIDENCE MANAWATU CUP INCIDENT P.A. PALMERSTON N., Feb. 29. The giving of misleading or incomplete evidence by witnesses, and the growing tendency of witnesses to withhold in judicial inquiries information that should be freely given, was stressed by the committee of the Manawatu Racing Club following the conclusion of an inquiry into the charges laid by Mr B. N. Sandilands against C. J. Thompson, trainer, and A. C. Messervy, and T. Webster, jockeys, that they had given unsatisfactory evidence at the inquiry which followed the running of the Manawatu Cup on December 20. In a general preface to the decisions of the committee in relation to the charges which it was held had been sustained, it was emphasised that the decisions of all committees naturally depended almost entirely upon the evidence produced at any inquiry. In the case of the inquiry into the incident which occurred towards the finish of the Manawatu Cup Race, it was pointed out that the oral evidence given by some witnesses who appeared before the Judicial Committee, was of such a character that had it not been for extraneous evidence that was unexpectedly made available to the Judicial Committee, it is possible indeed, even probable, that grievous injustice and injury would have been inflicted upon the owner, trainer and rider of the horse Gay Stroller which won the Manawatu Cup. It was also stressed by the committee that the time had arrived when a general warning should be issued that strong action would be taken in all cases where it had been made evident that witnesses had in any way given misleading evidence, whether actively, or by withholding information or facts. The committee’s decision was that Turoa Webster, who, in the committee’s opinion, had given evidence of an unsatisfactory or misleading, nature, should be fined £lO, that the evidence of C. J. Thompson had been unsatisfactory, in that having had an uninterrupted view of the horses travelling almost directly towards him, he should have seen the major incident, and that from this viewpoint his evidence, in the committee’s view, had been misleading. He was fined £lO, and A. C. Messervy, whose evidence, also in the committee’s opinion, was held unsatisfactory, and misleading,,particularly having regard to the main incident, was fined £2O.