SOUTH ISLAND TROTTING ASSOCIATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2302, 14 April 1898, Page 33

SOUTH ISLAND TROTTING ASSOCIATION.

By M. Quad.

The usual monthly meeting of the South Island Trotting Association was held on Thursday evening. There were present — Messrs Selig (president, in the chair), M'Lean, Marr, Walker, Garrard, Myers, Sukey, Mulholland, and Styche.

An apology for absence was read from Mr C. S. Howell.

The Westport Trotting wrote notifying the appointment of Mr Styche as the club's delegate on the association.

Mr H. C. Graham wrote to the effect that he had nominated his horse King James for the Lancaster Park meeting, but his nomination had been refused on account of the animal's name appearing in the forfeit list. Mr Graham stated that he had paid the amount due three days previous to nomination day. He also stated that he had enclosed the nomination fees to the secretary of the Lanctaster Park Club, and although he had twice written on the subject, he could not obtain a refund. Mr Rollitt, secretary to the association, stated that he had requested the removal of the horse's name from the official list, and this had been done as soon as possible. It was pointed out by the Chairman thai although the money had been paid as Mr Grrsh&m stated, his horse's name could not be taken out of the calendar until after the nominate as were due, consequently Mr Rattray could not accept the entry. It was agreed to forward Mr Graham's letter to Mr Rattray, several delegates pointing out that the latter had been absent from Christchurch during the period covered by Mr Graham's application for a refund.

The Chairman mentioned that as an outcome of the correspondence with the North Island Trotting Association that body had notified its intention to convene a meeting in June for the purpose of making a levy on affiliated clubs to meet the expenses incurred by the Greymouth Club in the Thunderbolt case.

Mr Myers asked for the Chairman's ruling of the meaning of Rule 1, in connection with the appointment of delegates. Could a club appoint a delegate except at its annual meeting? During the hearing of the Bed of Stone case several new men. had been appointed. The rule said annually.

The Chairman replied that in his opinion a club could appoint delegates at any time, and all those present were undoubtedly eligible to sit. As a matter of fact substitutes could be appointed at any time. The Lancaster Park Amateur Trotting Club notified that it had removed the disqualification imposed on W. Morrison, and a communication from the Nelson Club stated that it had decided to remove Iberia's name from the Calendar.

Mr Marr here stated that he was obliged to attend another meeting, and asked why the association's meeting had been called for that night. He had tmderstood that Wednesday v;as the day agreed xipon and he had made his arrangements accordingly. The alteration had caused him inconvenience.

Thp Chairman replied that the last two meetings had not been called on Wednesday. He had no desire to inconvenience the delegates. The Secretary read the following correspondence in connection with an appeal by Mr Chas. Todd, of Heriot, against a decision of the Roxburgh Jockey Club. It will be remembered that at the last meeting of the association the delegates decided to ask for further information from the club as to the circumstances leading up to the disqualification of Mr Todd's mare Topsy II. —

" Roxburgh, Otago, March 17, 1898.— The Secrotary South Island '.Plotting Association. — Dear Sir, — Iv teply to your last re Mr Todd's appeal, I have to inform you that Ivy JI was about a chain in front of Patieuce when Ivy moke, but immediately oefore that Patience was much closer, and was i>re«ing Ivy, and then Patience broke herself, and was pulled up on her haunches. Ivy then broke, and no attempt was made to pull her up. If Patience had cantered on in the breaks aa Ivy did the third how e would have had to get the stikes. The stewards met immediately after the race, and the judge withdrew. The stewards having seen the lace for themselves, judged his decision to be quite right, and endorsed it. The fact that Ivy's rider made no attempt to pull after the break was evidence that he thought himself out of the race. The judge's decision and the stewards' ruling were almost simultaneous, -and the stewards decided on a point of fact that the horse Ivy II gaUoped past the post, havirg broken some dislane/: before coming to it, and her rider having made no attempt to pull her. Mr ftelig and Mr Myers stated the case in accordance with tho views of this club at your earliest meeting, and I don't think there is anything further for me to add. As for our Stewaids having decided merely with the view of supporting the judge, that was not so. They reviewed the case, and heard ths evidence in tha absence of the judge, and from what they had seen for themselves they gave their decision. Hoping you have now the information you lequiie.-I am, yours, etc., P. J". Dunne, Hon. Ssc. P J.C."

" Heriot, March 17.— The Secretary S I.T. Association. Christchurch. — Dear Sir, — I notice, p^r Otago Witness, that Mr Dunne, secretary of the Roxburgh Jockey Club, has written two letters to your association re my protest. Mr Dunne gets away from the point at issue and indulges in abuse, which bears out the old adage, " No case, abu3J the other side." The point in question is, has the judge the powei 1 to ignore thf> first horse because it breaks on the post when the second horse is at least 20 yards behind, and the first horse ia not pushed, as in this case? The nominator, Mr J. A. Boyd, of Patience did not protest, aucl so he would nol think of protesting under the circumstance 11 , as my mare won fairly ; but at ihe same time, if the Roxburgh Club wished to make him a present of the stake he would not refuse. Mr Dunce states that the stewards did not say they were Abound to uphold tbe judge's decision. Mr Thomas Thompson, one of the stewards, dirt say this io the writer, and no other reason was given. Mr Dunne says I was mean in stating that the stewards returned my deposit. I merely staled this to show that they did nob consider ray protest frivolous. As to Mr Dunne being a, walking encyclopse iia, not one who knows that gentleman would accuse him of being an encyclopw Ua on auy subject, much less on racing. Neither be nor pny of the btewaida bad a copy of the trotting rulee, yet they had the baroihood to adjudicate upon the rase. Mr Dunne, in a postcciipt to his letter, states that the judge says that he di' qualified Ivy II because she broke three or four le.'.g'hs from the po^t and galloped past. I again afjiim, a.-j 1 did in my first Utter to your association, that tbe mare was within "one" leugU), pulling up, and when she skipped the rider could have. pulled her up ard walk-ci her in, a.s Patience was broken up at the same moment away behind. Mr B-iin. ono of the stewards, and the rider of Patience, =aj s he would not say how far Ivy II was fiom the pout when .she broke, which provts he was a long way behind. A ruther peculiar ciumnstauce in cjimcciion with this race is the fact that w heu-the haoclicax> was declared Mr Biggin', the owner of Patience, objected to th« handicap. . . . The upshot wns that Mr W. Baiu, ihe handicapper, obtained permission to ride l'atience. . . . Yet, although she did not win, the ttoward? paid the stake over iv the face of my protest. Mr Dunne says one sttward dissented to the lace being awaided to Patieuce. Mr James Elliott and Mr Joseph T-amblyu voted ag.unst the motion. That loft the voting three to two, The otherßtewards c

being interested, did not vote, and of the majority Mr Thomas Thompson admitted to me that my mare won fairly, but the stewards were bound to uphold the judge. I would not have troubled you to such length had the secretary stated the real facts of the case, but I could not allow such statements to go unchallenged. — Yours truly,— Charles Todd." Mr Mulholland said the secretary of the Roxburgh Club stated that Ivy II was a chain in front of Patience wheu the former broke.' Considering how near Ivy was to the post she could scarcely have lost. A chain was a good distance. Mr Myers said that at the recent meeting of the Tahuna Park Club Sacramento broke right on the post and got the stake.

Mr Garrard thought the decision of the stewards was correct. The Chairman considered the question was one of fact, which the stewards had a right to decide. At the same time the judge was doubtless wrong in not placing her. Mr Walker said it appeared to him that the decision was not quite so unanimous as the secretary had stated.

Mr Lukey said no question of fact was involved in this case, neither was it a question of treading on people's corns. The judge had pot the power assumed by him, and the association should se-i that iustice was ('one.

Mr Myers said if Patience was so far away whe-. Ivy broke it ought not to affect the result. Mr Lukey again contended that on the rules the judge was undoubtedly wrong. The stake should be given to Ivy 11.

The Chairman said the point was, should the horse have been pulled up when she broke? Mr Garrard said that, according to the secretary, the rider of Patience tried to pull her up, but Ivy's rider made no such effort. These alleged occurrences might have made a difference to the result of the race. If it was right to pull one up, why not the other ? Mr M'Lean said if Patience was pulled up on her haunches, that, to his mind, was evidence that her rider consideiecl he had no chance, or why take such a pull ? Mr Lukey agreed with Mr M'Lean. Mr Mulholland believed in the principle of sun-p-rting stewards whenever possible, but in this case they had done wrong in perpetuatiag the judge's mi&take.

Mr Styche said ihat according to Mr Dunne's letters Ivy II was six leEgths from the post when she broke. She would have won, break or not, and he could not see that the break affected the result. He moved— "'lhat the appeal be up. held."

'J his wastscoudr.d by Mr Lukey, there being but one dissentient;, the chairman not voting.

Letters and telegrams were read from and to the Southland Trotting Club with reference to the refural of the Colonial Secretary to issue a permit for the club's meeting. The chairman said it was somewhat hard to withdraw this permit, as the Southland Club was on the original list, but so far the association had heeu unable to help the club. The Colonial Secretary ha-?, as delegates probably knew, refused other club's licenses.

Several lidcrs* and drivers' licenses were issued, others wure confirmed, and a few left ov.er for inquiry as to the suitability of the applicants.

Theie are several points in connection with Mr i Todd's appeal which it is scarcely worth my while | to touch, as it is probable that both that gentle- 1 man and Mr Dunne have unconsciously put their j respective cases before the association in the most ; favourable light. In doing fo it is possible that j either may have unintentionally strained the j facts surrounding the cate. The association was j obliged to partially view Mr Todd's letters as j ex patte statements, and in the discussion which : followed the reading of the correspondence the j delegates rightly set themselves the task of con- . sidering the case ou the basis of the trotting J rules. In taking this course the delegates were ! undoubtedly right, and the decision of the asso- 1 cation is in accordance with these rules. If 1 a judge were allowed to place wlmt animals h* liked, there would be an end of trotting. Had the club provided themselves with a copy of the trotting rules the stewards could scarcely have made the mistake of supporting the judge's error. The possession of these rules is au abso- | lute necessity, and had the secretary of the Rox- ! burgh Club been the possessor of a copj', he would . have been able to afford Mr Todd any informa- , tion as to the couise to be pursued when appealing to the association, and niijjht have avoided a j part of the unpleasantness tnat has apparently j arisen. At the game time every man who nomi- i nates a trotter ought to pc conversant with the { rules governing the sport equally with an honoraiy secretary and stewards. Of course there is • nothing to prevent a club paying the stake twice, j but a study of the rules might have stopped the } unnecessary outlay. The point submitted to the ' association by Mr Todd was whether a judge had | the power to ignore and disqualify his mare Ivy > 11, and this question has been decided against the j club. This was the "question of fact" the dele- ! gate?) had to vote upon. Iha point that Ivy broke j is not admissable. the whole case resting on ths action of the judge. That functionary mu3t place j the horses as they finish, unless otherwise in- i etructed by the stewards ; he has no power, in the | rules, to disqualify— that is a privilege possessed ; by the stewards alone. The secretary states thai. \ the decision of the judgs and stewaids was almost simultaneous. This sounds somewhat strange, j and probably is a nmtaken phrase. I have not ! the least doubt that the association has a)gued . and decided correctly, and it will be noted that • two delegates who previously felt inclined to stip- j port the club spoke iv favour of the appellant. ! As a matter of fact only Mr Garrard voted ', agaiust the motion j

With reference to Mr Graham's complaint that he could not obtain any answer from Mr Rattray nor his nomination fee leturnecl, the secretary of the Lancaster Park Club has shown me his letter book, iv which is a copy of his reply dated April 5, to Mr Graham. In this Mr Rattray explains that he was in Dunedin when the lettor arrived, and had taken the earliest; opportunity of replying and forwarding P. 0.0.

During the discussion which arose in connection with the granting of riders' and drivers' licenses, the association beneibly held that licenses should not be granted to anyone unless proof was forthcoming that the applicant was competent. Ib was pointel oat that inexperienced men were a source of danger on tha track, especially in big fields. An applicant might be thoroughly respectable, but this does not necessarily mean that he can drive,