BOY OF FOUR OWNS TROTTER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18339, 16 December 1927, Page 3

BOY OF FOUR OWNS TROTTER.

BOARD REFUSES TO REGISTER IN NAME. “ That might not please grandfather, but we can't help that," said Mr W. Hayward when an application was dealt with for registration of a trotting horse last night. A boy of four, in the Gore district, is the owner of a trotting horse, a present from his grandfather. When registration 'of the horse in the boy’s name was applied for at the meeting of the board of the New Zealand Trotting Association last night, the application was refused, the board deciding that it could not register a horse in the name of a child of that age, as it and the trotting clubs would have no jurisdiction over an infant. “ There are possibilities in such a case which we should not countenance,” said Mr R. A. Armstrong. “We don’t want to encourage a boy of four to race a horse. It opens the door to a number of abuses, and we can hold no claim against the boy-owner for payment of acceptance fees.” The application came from the Gore Trotting Club, which stated that the boy’s grandfather had made him a present of the horse. A member: What will happen if some complications occur with the running of the horse? How are we going to get on? That the board would have no defence in law if it refused to register the horse was the contention of Mr Armstrong, who added that. the association was not in favour of an animal running in the name of an infant. “I suggest that it be registered s in the grandfather’s name,” said Mr J. R. M’Kenjde. Mr Armstrong: That would be better. We could ask an adult to nominate the horse and run it in his own name, and accept full responsibility. The chairman (Mr J. H. Williams) : It seems ridiculous that a boy of four should be racing a horse. The board should set its face against such a thing. The boy should enter the horse in the joint name of a man who would have the power to nominate and scratch for races. Mr W. Hayward: That might not please grandfather, but we can’t help that. Mr Armstrong said that the application ** was over the odds. It was preposterous.” If the boy owned the horse he would have a legal guardian, but even then the position of the association was obscure. The gift might turn out to be a liability rather than an asset to the boy. It depended upon whether the horse was any good. Mr Hayward said that the board should give a lead to the club, recommending that the horse stand in the name of a responsible person who would accept aU liability, and who would act for the boy witlfout. leaving the infant any legacy of liabilities when he was old enough to meet such. A motion that the application as it stood be refused was carried unanimously.