RACING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20085, 2 March 1928, Page 8

RACING

BAGBY’S SUSPENSION j | AUCKLAND BODY’S APPEAL. ; I \ LICENSING COMMITTEE DECIDES. [ Per Press Association, i WELLINGTON, March 1. ; . The New Zealand Racing Conference has given judgment in the mat- : ter of the appeal by the Auckland District Committee against the decision of the Licensing Committee of the ■ New Zealand Racing Conference in ' terminating the suspension of W. S. j Bagby’s license as a jockey on January ! “Had the appellant in this case, , the Auckland District Committee, a I true perception of the functions exercised by the Licensing Committe in suspending and returning Bagby’s license, we do not think this appeal | would have been lodged,” stated the j judgment. “The appeal is expressed to be. •against the determination of the licensing (onunittee of the New Zealand Racing Conference sitting at Wei- ' lington on the 23rd day of January. ; J 928. whereby Walter Scott Bagby was granted a jockey’s license.’ Id fact, no such determination was made by ithe Licensing Committee on that date i and the appellant has misconceived I the. purpose of the meeting of the ! Licensing Committee referred to and the purport of its order. The first of 'the grounds stated in support of the | appeal, namely, that i W. S. Bagby is ' not a fit and proper person to be i granted to Bagby?’ but ‘For how long j the. fruit of this misconception because Ithe question before the Licensing Coin- { niittee was not ‘ls a license' to be granted to Gabgy?’ but ‘For how long i are we to continue the suspension ®f ■ Bagby’s license we made on Novem- | her 14. 1927’? Two different questions, | the answer to the second, in our opinlion, not necessarily- involving the . answer to the lirst and depending on ! the nature of the offence for which the i Licensing Committee imposed suspension and in our opinion more properly .to be answered by the body imposing the penalty, namely the Licensing Committee. than the Auckland District ; Committee. I “The facts are in substance as follows: Bagby was granted a jockey’s I license as from the Ist August, 1927, j because it must be assumed he was a fit and proper person to hold such a license. That license was issued by i the licensing committee on the re- { ! commendation of the Auckland District i Committee. He continued to hold his {license till October 7, 1927, and his qualifications to do so must be as- | I med to have continued up to that ! idate. In October, 1927, the Auckland District Committee recommended to Ithe licensing committee that it should suspend B&gby’s license because a charge of manslaughter was laid against him. The licensing comniittee, acting on such recommendation, on the 7th October, 1927, suspend- | <*d Bagby As license pendii.g the hearing uf the manslaughter charge. “ Inasmuch as the real question re lat<> to the degree of punishment indicted or the term for which Bagby was debarred from using his license it is convenient at this point to break off the narrative and point out that the penalty recommended by the Auckland District Committee and imposed by the licensing committee was “suspension,” not “cancellation” or “withdrawal,’ ’alternative penalties expressly placed in the hands of the licensing committee, the rule under • which they acted’ ( Rule 4, part NIX) iand that-the term of suspension was : ’pending hearing of the manslaughter ‘charge.’ I Bagby was apparently acquitted on the charge of manslaughter and convicted on an alternative charge of . egligent driving and fined £lOO., and the \urkland District Committee, in view «f such finding, again recommended the licensing committee to suspend his license. In pursuance of such recommendation the licensing committee, on November 14. 1927, suspended Bagby’s i cense, the term of suspension being •ft open. In December, 1927, appli--ation was made to the Auckland Dis- ; rict Committee that, they recommend ithe removal of Bagby’s suspension on i certain undertakings as to employment. The Auckland District Committee did I not, however, see fit to make such recommendations to the licensing somj niittee, with the result that on the I matter coming before the licensing * I committee in December, 1927, that ‘•ominit tee derided to hold over the (question until its January' meeting. ; A further recommendation was subi sequently' received by the licensing committee from the Auckland District • ’ommitfee that Bagby’s license be ’ suspended until July, 31. 1928. On {January 23, 1928. the licensing c.omimittee reconsidered the question an I ••l<< id*-d to terminate the suspension of > Bagby’s license conditionally. . “In our opinion th l circumstances ’ related show that the final question properly before the Licensing (Jommit- : Lee on January 23, 1928, was the term for which the punishment imposed on Bagby on account of his conviction for negligent driving and causing the death ‘of a woman was to last and this is admitted by the appellant. Appellant’s '■oni|>laint really is that the penalty imposed was too light, but appellant recommended suspension and suspension 'was imposed. Appellant’s, complaint | is thus reduced to dissatisfaction with • the perio«l of suspension. Assuming ’ i such dissatisfaction a valid ground of i appeal under Rule 11 Part XIX, we 1 1 cannot agree that an appeal on such grounds should be readily granted. 1 The reasoning in support of such an appeal amounts to no more than the assertion of a belief on Ihe part of the appellant that it is better able to judge ion the penalty to be imposed in such ' < ircumstanc<‘s than Ihe body from which appellant appeals. . “The constitution of the Licensing ' ommittee, consisting as it does of the president and one member of each distriet committee, convinces us that anv i such theory is inconsistent with the ' purpose for which (he Licensing Committee was created and there is nothing whatever in the case or in the evidence to make us believe the decision appealed from was wrong. In our opinion the appeal fails. The order is that the appeal be dismissed.” i Signed: Harold Johnston, lan Dun- ! can. O. S, Watkins, judges.