NEW ZEALAND TROTTING ASSOCIATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2400, 1 March 1900, Page 42

NEW ZEALAND TROTTING ASSOCIATION.

'A. special meeting of the New Zealand Trotting Association was held on the 17th February; present— Messrs P. Selig (president), '&. L. Myers, C. S. Howell, J. F. Grierson, T. ■H. Davey, G. H. M'Hafne, G. King, and D. 'iM'Lean. . :. The question of Mr E. Cla,rkson's taking part in the proceedings, he being a steward of the !Cai.terbury Club, was raised. The chairman 'corsiclesed that this was a matter for Mr Clarkiison himself. He pointed out that Mr Clarklison (who was not present) was a member of the 'association, elected by all the clubs in the "colony, and hot a delegate for any club. 1 The Canterbury Trotting Club wrote, giving names of certain stewards who had 5s each in the totalisator on the race. !' The Chairman explained that the meeting '.■was called to consider questions at issue beAween M. Edwards and the stewards of the [Canterbury Trotting Club, arising out of the disqualification by the latter of the horse Little 'ATchie at the club's recent Summer meeting. .The association had at present nothing to do ,with the question whether the disqualification ">vas right or wrong ; whether that would be inquired into would depend upon the result of [the investigation. If it was found that the disqualification was arrived at honestly and '"by a proprely constituted meeting the disqualification must stand. :' The question of the status of patties and "their admission to the inquiry was considered. •It was decided that the case should be treated as an inquiry into the statements made by M. iSdward3 against the stewards of the Canterbury Trotting Club, and that Edwards and an [•official representative of the club should be pertmitted to be present, also the secretary of the 'Canterbury Trotting Club. 1 Thomas Marr, president of the Canterbury trotting Club, stated that at the meeting of fetewards he asked Edwards if he had any witinesses to call, and Edwards answered No. He had 5s on Little Archie. Certain evidence 'given at the inquiry was directed by the meetSing to be deleted, as it was considered not to +lbear on -the case. One of the rules (23) of 3ihs Canterbury Trotting Club provided' that f',Any meniber being financially interested in janv proposition brought forward at either a general, special, ox committee meeting shall .■withdraw from the meeting while such motion iss being discussed or voted on." He considered that as applying to tenders, etc., not }fco racing. Mr Reynolds tendered no evidence^ •at the meeting of stewards; he merely made a' r)Btatement,r )Btatement, which was forwarded to the association. He did not tell Edwards that if the .jbotalisator money was allowed to be paid out Ire would reopen the case; he had no power to Jlilo bo. He wa-s not interested, directly or indirectly, in any of the horses in the race furthan the 6s on the totalisator. To Mr iM'Lean: He considered Edwards' s statements } ta libel on the stewards. He considered the .■stewards a proper body to try the question, i". A t. Rattray, secretary of the Canterbury JTrottingv Chib: Took all the minutes of the •meetings held by the Canterbury Trotting Club ko inquire into the All Day-Little Archie case. (Produced rough minutes of the evidence, showing part deleted by instruction of the meeting. Some other parts of the evidence was &ot sent to the association. It was ordered to ibe deleted end not entered on the minute feook. These rough notes were read over to Sthe witnesses at the time, before the parts Quoted were struck out. The witnesses were f-oresent when the parts were struck out; they Sid not object. He (witness) did not know why fehe parts wer© struck out. .One steward said flHe did not think the portion struck out reEerred t6 the case. At none of the meetings Mia he hear it asked whether any of the stewlavds present were interested in the race. At (the first meeting one steward voluntarily stated fehat he had 5s on All-Day. At the meeting of tehe committee some members thought it would foe far better for the club, and more satisfactory -to the public, if those interested took •aio part in the meeting. It was the general -opinion of the meeting that there was no harm 'fdn thos^ having 5s or 10s on the race taking ['.joart'in the proceedings. At the first meeting j£he motion that the protest against Little s&.tchie .be upheld was put to the meeting. TSeveral said " Aye " ; one said _ " No." Two ■fcomniitteemen had since told him that they ijHid not vote. Two of the stewards had horses van in the race, and they would receive ('second and third money respectively, by the jVuphoWng of the protest. Could not say rrwhethej one of them voted 'or whether he left [Hihe room before the vote was taken. Could Rsiot say whether the other spoke or voted. KThere was no show of hands. As secretary jfwould assume that all who did not say " No " /Viroted lor the motion. Thirteen stewards were [.Vniesenl The knowledge that other stewards •^besides the one who admitted the fact were hntereated was "obtained on Monday night (Febfiuary 19). One owner would receive £20, and fanother £10 as a result of the protest being At the second meeting (committee) *' neither was present. Rule 23 has not been 'Meted upon for about two years. There was |no financial consideration in question at the fcominittee meeting, which was merely to contender Edwards's letter. Both the stewards' and jtjthe committee meetings were held, and EdiWards was disqualified, prior to his being infformed that more than one steward was interested. It was suggested at the committee *ineeting that the' names of those interested be |«ent to the association, but no motion was gsropOsed. The idea was to show that those s&nterested in Little Archie had voted against tjfcheir own interest. Edwards was present the hearing of evidence at the stewViards' meeting. Could not say whether Edfiwardle was asked whether he had any evidence yftiO call. One meeting of stewards and three of ftcoininittee had been held to deal with the case. fiOne steward made a statement at the stewards' Rmeejblng. He began by saying, " Before any Saresolutions are passed I wish to report." It flias always been the practice of the club to $ake the testimony of stewards on matters oc'curping in a race. One of the_ stewards asked jfchai some of the evidence be deleted. It was «n '-nnusual course to alter rough minutes beSore writing them in the minute book. Such h, thing had never occurred to him before. The jfirsl committee meeting was adjourned in order (to 'obtain copies of telegrams in connection with fcett^ng commissions. All these were sent tp the

mittee was not sent tc the association. This code was retiirned by the president after the latter had written the translation on the telegram. Witness did aot see the code. The ! Auckland code did not come before the coni- • mittee. The reason one gentleman connected i with the case was asked to apologise to the ! stewards was that he had made the statements which, caused Edwards to make the charges against the sewards, and he was also a mem- ; ber of the club. No apology had been reI ceived. Another steward and member of coinj mittee attended all the committee meetings. One steward mentioned at the meeting of j stewards about being interested. No question i was asked. The president "had been chair- ■ man for a year and nine months. Mr Perkins i was chairman before that time. During Mr i Peikins's presidency there was sometimes a i difficulty in getting a quorum of stewards, because of their being interested in the race. It was understood' that stewards interested should not sit. Believed a resolution to that effect was passed about 1894. This resolution was not taken down by witness a3 secretary; heard some of the members say so. Rule 23 had always been a rule of the club. Neither resolution nor rule had been rescinded. The rules were revised about 1895. In other clubs j stewards interested to the extent of 5s did not sit, as far as he knew. The usual practice in other clubs was for the chairman to ask" whether any steward was "interested. He had seen stewards .leave"" on this question being asked. Had known stewards of the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club having money on a race and yei deliberating on a protest. Did not know whether that club had a rule on the question. A steward of the Canterbury Trotting Club said he was present at the stewards' inqiiiry into the All Day-Little Archie case, but retired at the same time as Edwards and C. Kerr. Did not hear any motion put to the meeting. Had a horse running in the Three-year-old Handicap, which finished third. By the protest being decided in favour of All Diiy |he took second place. Heard Edwards's evi- | dence. Heard Mr Marr ask Edwards if he had any more evidence to fetch. Edwards '■ ! answered " No." The chairman then closed the hearing. Backed his own horse. Knew now of Rule 23, but did not know at the time. Was not sitting on the case at any time; was only there to hear the proceedings. Never thought about being interested, but retired bscause he had made up his mind to have nothing to do with the case". Edwards might infer he was taking part in the proceedings. Never opened his mouth while in the room. Left the room because he trained his horse on Kerr's track. Had trained there, free, for eight or nine years. Edwards's solicitor had told him that he was sorry he mentioned him, as he had found he had nothing to do with the case, and only mentioned him 1 as he had been in the. room at the time. Witness did not sit on tlie case. Had he done so he might ; not have upheld the protest. A former president of the Canterbury Trotting Club said that he retired from the position about October, 1896. Presided at all meetings of the club at which he was present. In his time Rule 23 was in force. Believed he proposed the rule. The object of the rule was to prevent stewards adjudicating on cases in which they were interested. It was not made to apply to any tender, btit purely to sport. The stewards in his time were aware j of the rule. In case of a protest the question was always put whether any steward was interested, and he had known cases of stewards retiring because of being interested, such stew- : ards having probably thoughtlessly come into ■the room. A man who had, 2& 6d or 5s on ■would withdraw. The constitution of the present committee varied considerably from that of the time when witness was chairman. Only two or three of the old stewards were on the present list. Witness had £1 on Little Archie. Witness was in the post office, when one of the stewards, named T. Edwards, asked the telegraph clerk if he could get on to Dune din by telephone. The clerk answered " Yes, if ' the lines were clear." This was about three ■ minxites to 10. Directed the steward to the officer in charge. Did not know whether he went there. Never, heard the " tender " constrviction put om the rule. Did not know what the steward was doing in the telegraph office. ] Several other witnesses gave evidence, the major portion of which has already been pub- \ lished. j On the question Ox proceeding to deal with the evidence the Chairman eaid there were t two questions to be considered: first, the disqualification of Edwards; and second, whether j the stewards' decision in the All Day-Little ; Archie protest was that of a properly_-qualified j board. He was in the hands of the meeting j as to proceeding. - ! After some conversation the meeting at 2.40 a.m., was adjourned to the following Tuesday, at 7 p.m.