Sporting Review. THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1893.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume III, Issue 130, 19 January 1893, Page 4

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1893.

Another Conference of Metropolitan Clubs’ delegates is to be held in Wellington during the progress of the Wellington Racing Club’s Summer Meeting. What the extraneous business that may come before it is likely to be we cannot say, but we do know that on the notice paper appear two motions for consideration. One of these is intended to affirm the formation of the New Zealand Jockey Club, and to draft its rules and constitution, and the other is to take some steps with reference to the walking totalisator. We have before now expressed our opinion that the New Zealand Jockey Club is a necessary governing body in the colony, but only under certain conditions, and the more we study the rules now proposed the more we come to the conclusion that the system is too cumbrous to work well. The Dunedin Jockey Club have always stood out against the proposed N.Z.J.C., and as we pointed out last week they still stick consistently to their colours, as witness the resolution they passed the other day The Auckland Racing Club were some time ago inclined to fall in with the proposals made, but their committee have changed their mind —to a certain extent —since then, and their delegate goes down to Wellington prepared to oppose the motion submitted to the Conference. With the Dunedin Jockey Club and Auckland Racing Club holding out, it seems as if a climax has been reached, and with the A.R.C. in opposition it is more the pity that the D.J.C. have declined to recognise the Conference in any way. Had, say, their secretary Mr. Sydney James been delegated to proceed to Wellington, and had he and the A.R.C.’s secretary, Mr Percival— who will represent the A.R.C. at the Conference —had a bit of conversation on certain points of the proposed rules, we feel certain the “ olive

branch” of peace would have been held out by both clubs. This only accentuates what we remarked in a recent issue that more business would be done at a few days’ Conference of the various Metropolitan Clubs’ secretaries at a convenient centre than has been done by all the delegates that have so far represented the Metropolitan Clubs at the various Conferences held.

There are several matters outside the business that appears on the notice paper at the conference that we hope will be brought before it. The delegates seem never to fairly tackle the mistakes and ambiguity that exists in their rules, and it is high time they did so. Let them, if they have any leisure in Wellington, look through the records of the Christmas and New Year’s Day meetings that have appeared in the Sporting Review and other papers and ask themselves whether their rules re nomenclature are in any way complied with, or if any effort is ever made to enforce them ? Then have we not within the past two or three months seen instances of persons whose names appear in the forfeit list for nominations running horses at meetings authorised by a Metropolitan Club ? Jockies, too, who have either owed money to clubs or have been disqualified for malpractices have crossed their legs over saddles at meetings held under Metropolitan Clubs’ rules Is this the spirit in which we should have our Turf legislation carried out ? Better far burn the whole code of rules and have a fresh lot framed than allow them to be defied with impunity as they are at present.

The famous Bullerana case—of which we have written more than once —has advanced another stage, this time in a Court of Law. Our readers may remember that at the time the Victoria Racing Club disqualified Bullerana, the horse was engaged in the Standish Handicap. Hit owner, Mr Jurd, when the acceptarrce time for this race came round, tendered the V.R.C. the proper fee of £4, but they declined to accept it. and struck the hfjrse out of the race. Mr Jurd then commenced an action against the Club to recover damages for breach of contract in refusing to allow the horse to run. Mr Duffy, on behalf of the plaintiff, appealed in the Supreme Court to Mr~ Justice Hodges for a mandatory injunction ordering the V.R.C. to take the £4 which had been proffered, and also ordering them to allow the horse to start. The principal grounds of the application were that the disqualification in New South Wales had no effect in Victoria until it was confirmed by the V.R.C. ; that the disqualification of James Jurd had no effect on the rights of Richard Jurd ; and that the V.R.C. having taken £1 from the plaintiff, had entered into a contract with him, which they were bound to complete by accepting the remaining £4 and allowing the horse to run in the race. Mr Coldham, on behalf of the V.R.C., contended that under no circumstances could a mandatory injunction be granted in such a case. The V.R.C Committee had a perfect right, he argued, under the rules of their Club to disqualify the horse ; that if it were not disqualified at the time they received the £l, it was actually disqualified before the tender of the £4, and that, therefore, it did not continue to be duly entered for the race within the meaning of/ Rule 38, which states that a horse shall be duly entered, and shall continue to be duly entered. The horse, in fact, he further argued, ceased to be duly entered from the moment the V.R.C. disqualified it under Rules 129 and 131, which they had every right to do, because of the disqualification of its owner at the Moorefield Park Races. His Honor, in delivering judgement, said :—

It appears that this horse, in July of this year, belonged to one James Jurd, and while it belonged to him was run on a racecourse in New South Wales. James Jurd, the then owner, was believed to have been guilty of corrupt practices with respect to the running of the horse, and the stewards of the race meeting disqualified the horse and also James Jurd for suspicious riding for a period of 12 months. Tne plaintiff is now desirous that his horse shall run in the Standish Handicap, and has tendered the amount which was required to be paid by the owners of a horse entering into the race. The defendant declines to receive the the balance of the stake to be paid, on the ground that the horse is disqualified under the rules of the V.R.C. I desire at this stage to express no opinion as to whether the horse is or is not disqualified, nor as to the rights of the present owner or present apparent owner. I feel a good deal of doubt as to whether the horse is or is not disqualified, and as to the regularity of the course pursued by the committee of the V.R.C.; and while I entertain that doubt, I entertain a larger doubt as to the plaintiff’s rights—or as large doubts, I should say. That being so, I'have to consider whether or not I ought to grant this injunction, which would be en-

titling the horse to run, and really would be at the present time decreeing, on the facts before me, a specific performance of the contract. Now,; it appears to me, in the first place, though it would be somewhat difficult when the action is heard to estimate the damages which would accrue to the plaintiff for the wrongful rejection of. him by the defendants, the damages might be estimated, and that they would be a full and complete satisfaction for any loss the plaintiff may suffer. That being so, I don’t think I ought at this stage to grant the injunction asked for. I shall refuse it, and make the costs of this summons costs in the cause.

We shall probably hear more of this Bullerana affair at an early date. It bids fair to be a very, interesting and unique case.

We mentioned last week that the Dune., r' din Jockey Club’s Committee had .once more stated their determination to oppose to the utmost the proposal for the formation of a New Zealand Jockey Club. We also mentioned that the" Auckland Racing Club’s Committee had expressed themselves in a similar strain, though not perhaps with quite such directness and vehemence. All along the Dunedin Jockey Club have stood firm to their guns in this matter. 'From the very first time the proposal was mooted they have declared that they would have none of it, but unfortunately they never gave any reasons for their attitude of hostility. It was generally thought that their hostility was based on an idea that the N Z. Jockey Club was not required, and that its working -Would be somewhat cumbersome and expensive. These seem to be some of the grounds on which the / D.J.C. are opposing the club’s formation, for in their “ official organ,” the Otago Witness* “ Mazeppa” thus delivers himself

The resolution, in plain English, of the club means it as such, members desiring, I understand, that there should be no risk of a misconception as to their intentions. I am not authorised to explain the position taken up, but fro n all that I hear there are several grounds for the hostility to the proposal. One on which some stress is laid is that a sufficiently good case has not been made out by the supporters of the proposition. \ Rower is asked to create an expensive organisation; to maintain which would involve a tax on clubs, and commensurate results could hardly be expected. The N.Z.J.C. could do very little more than what the Metropolitans are now doing ; nothing more than they could do if made more representative of the country as well as the town clubs. The N.Z.J.C.’s value as a court of appeal would not be very light—and it might be less than nothing—it might be mischievous in conferring authority from local tribunals who have the best means of knowing the ins and outs of a dispute to a body of men who could not so fully understand ,all the circumstances of each case. The D.J.C, believes that Auckland understands Auckland matters best, and that Canterbury is the most competent authority on Canterbury troubles, and it is quite certain that Otago can get along most comfortably under a system which does not exclude the principle of self-government. Herein, I think, lies the kernel of the present resistance. Otago is not willing to surrender one iota of its independence, and dread is felt that under the new system the clubs at the extremes of the colony wonld ultimately become what, say the Hawkesbury Club is to the A.J.C. Nominally, of course, the N.Z.J.C. would be a kind of Turf Parliament, but in practice it would be found that the government would be left to a few men with time and money io spare, or, worse still, to those who happened to be on the spot at Wellington or Christchurch, wherever the headquarters were fixed. There is, at any rate, a danger of this state of affairs coming about, and united Otago, as voiced by the D.J.C., will not lend itself to any experiments which might entail such an unsatisfactory result. There are probably other reasons operating to account for the resolution of the D.J.C. Those that I have stated, though never formally put forward, are well understood, and so far as Otago is concerned thoroughly endorsed. The tone of the November Conference in Dunedin was not uncertain in respect to this matter. How it will pan out I can’t pretend to guess, but I do know that the D.J.C. is nearly, if not quite unanimous on the subject, and it seems to me that they have the best of the argument.

The Colonial Secretary is, vulgarly speaking, ‘ getting roots ’ all roqjjd from the newspapers of the colony for his action in granting a totalisator permit to the Northern Wairoa Racing Club in opposition to the express wish and resolution of the Auckland Racing Club. We are waiting now to see what these papers will say when they learn that he also issued a permit to the Whangarei people, who had openly announced that their races were not held under the rules of the Metropolitan Club. ‘ Mazeppa,’ the Dunedin scribe, writing anent the Northern Wairoa business, thus rubs it in to the Colonial Secretary as well as into th e ‘ powers that be’ that evidentlypromptedthatofficial:^ —

The Metropolitan Club seems to have been to blame in raising the objection as to date, hut it afterwards gave way on that point and having thus paved the way to some extent to a compromise it is a thousand pities that the representative of the Government should have given a slap in the eye to the body whose express duty it is to carry out rules which were practically forced on it by the Legislative, of which the Government is the head. It looks very much as if the Colonial Secretary had been talked over by someone who does not appear in the matter. If this sort of thing is to be the rule we shall have chaos very shortly. , /.

A CASE that seems likely to stand as a precedent for all time in racing matters—to become almost as famous as the Wood v. Leadbitter case—has just been decided by an American Court of law. This was what is known as ‘the Huron case.’ The colt Huron, when sold as a yearling, was engaged in the Futurity Stakes. The vendor afterwards struck him out, but the buyer claimed to have bought the colt with this engagement, and applied to the Coney Island Jockey Club to let Huron run. This permission was refused by them, they holding that Huron had not been sold with his engagements Mr E. Corrigan, the colt’s owner, then obtained a mandatory injunction from the court 'Compelling the club to allow his colt to start; Huron did start and finished second, but the officials refused to consider Inm as a participant in the race, and paid the's.econd money to the owner of the horse which finished third. Mr Corrigan then' sued the Club for second money and, ''©ending the decision of this suit, the Coriey Island Club appealed from the order which granted the injunction. The FurJ Court decided that Huron was not entitled to start in the Futurity Stakes, akd consequently the action against the Clijb for second money fell to the ground. This decision thus once more reaffirms the declarations which have been made over and over again by our judges that the decisions of racing tribunals will not be overridden by them unless under compulsion cAf very strong reasons.