JOHN DEE CASE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 388, 23 June 1928, Page 7

JOHN DEE CASE

APPEAL DISMISSED OTAGO WRITER’S VIEWS AN ILLOGICAL DECISION When Needles won the Waikuru Trot at the Oamaru Racing Club’s recent fixture, defeating John Dee, the committee reversed the judge's placing on the ground that J. Walsh, driver of the former had unduly flourished his whip in the straight, evidently to the detriment of John Dee, and also fined Walsh £lO. The question subsequently came before the New Zealand Trotting Association, which decided that Needles would have won in any case, and that it would be an injustice to deprive the owner of the stake. The decision of the Oamaru Club committee was then reversed, and the race awarded to Needles, with John Dee second. It was also decided that the fine of £lO imposed upon Walsli be altered to suspension for the remainder of the season. Mr. C. J. Meade, owner of John Dee, appealed against the decision of the association, and the affair was then dealt with by the Trotting Conference judges, who dismissed the appeal. Writing on what he terms a rather “illogical decision.” the well-known Otago scribe “Sentinel” says:—“The rules seem to have been twisted, and a case based on a question of fact converted into a matter of opinion. The rule on the point is quite conclusive. Rule 315 of part XXX. states, inter alia: ‘A question of fact shall be construed literally, i.e., short weight, a cross, or obvious pull.’ Any objection based on these points is not subject to appeal because the rule positively states: ‘The finding of the stewards as to any question of fact shall be conclusive, and not subject to appeal or be reversed under rule 321.’ The John Dee case was based on a question of fact, as interference and a cross constitute the same offence. The driver of Needles frequently swung his whip out as far as he could across the track after entering the straight, and so impeded the progress of John Dee. who swerved out when on the point of getting on terms with the offending driver’s horse. The whip flourishing was particularly noticeable, and the matter was taken up by the stipendiary steward acting at the meeting. The Judicial Committee not only had sufficient evidence to reverse the placings made by the judge, but also imposed a fine on the offending driver. An Established Fact “The interference then became an officially established fact, and should have stood in law under the Rules of Trotting. “But, although the case was dead in law, the Trotting Association thought fit to read the matter of opinion into the case, although it had clearly no right to do so. The rule under which the Trotting Association acted is completely governed by the one quoted above. The association was obviously inspired by the fact that a member stated that the interference, which could not be denied, made no difference to tho result. That aspect of the case is purely a matter of opinion, and hence should not be held as sufficient grounds to upset a decision based on a question of fact on which the Judicial Committee, at tho instigation of the stipendiary steward, originally dealt with tho case. It has been held, and tlio point apparently swayed the opinion of the Appeal Court, that a master should not be punished for an offence committed by a servant. That may be so. but the act of the same servant also killed any winning chance held by the second horse, and if the owner of the first horse past the post should not bo punished, why, in the name of logic, should the owner of the second horse be seriously punished although admittedly deprived of whatever chance he had of winning by an act on the part of the driver of the only horse likely to beat him? Made a Difference “The interference happened about a furlong from home, and it is ridiculous to say that the whip-flourishing made no difference to the result. How many horses will run on against a whip flourishing in their face, and if, when nearer the post, the flourishing ceases, it cannot reasonably be expected that the intimidated horse would even then court a further chance of punishment. “No one who saw the race could deny the fact of interference, and a matter of opinion should not, in common justice, over-ride a question of fact. When Sherwood was held to have interfered with Reta Peter in the Trotting Cup the former lost the stakes, although the alleged interference made no difference to the result, as ,at the time (only a few strides from the post), Sherwood was racing away from Beta Peter. Sherwood’s owner and his interest were not considered in the matter. Another important case on the same point cropped up when Craganour lost the fruits of his win in the Derby through interference with Aboyeur. The owners were not considered in the matter. It was wholly and solely a question whether one horse or his rider interfered with another's chance of winning. This was the question also dominating the Sherwood case, and the point on which the John Dee case should have been decided, and not on a matter of opinion. Still Going Strong Anseline continues to trot along in solid fashion, and she is one that can always be relied upon to do her. best when it conies to the last part of the journey. In the Winter Handicap Anseline forms one of the back division, but there will be something wrong with J. Gee’s mare if she is not among the forwards when the box is reached. The Nut Ansel mare can put in a desperate finish when the wire is in view.