Sporting Review. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1894.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume V, Issue 215, 6 September 1894, Page 4

Sporting Review. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1894.

As will be seen by a letter published elsewhere we have been asked to express an opinion respecting the protest lodged against Austral, the winner of the Maiden Steeplechase at the winter meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Jockey Club held on June 28th. The case stands thus. On the same day that the steeplechase in question was run the official calendar appeared in our contemporary the Weekly Press, and bore the following addition to the unpaid forfeit list : —“ A. Peters’ b g Austral, £z 15s, due to the Reefton Jockey Club.” After Austral had won the steeplechase a protest was lodged against the gelding’s owner receiving the stakes on the lines indicated by the addition to the forfeit list which we have quoted. The settlement of this protest was, as may be imagined, anything but an easy task, and the H.B.J.C. decided to refer the question to their solicitor, with the result that that gentleman gave his decision in favour of the second horse. One would naturally think that such a decision, coming from a gentleman of the long robe, would settle the matter and place Austral’s owner out of court; but we take the liberty of doubting whether a proper decision has been arrived at, although the award does come from a legal mind. Such a decision may, it is true, be legal but it iscertainly anything but just, and our reasons for coming to such a conclusion are these. It was impossible for Austral’s owner to be aware of the fact that his name stood in the unpaid forfeit list; he was never informed by the Nelson Metropolitan Club that his name had been forwarded to the publishers of the calendar for insertion in the list ; nor was the secretary of the H.B.J.C. informed of such insertion. Mr Luckie therefore was unable to acquaint the owner of the embargo that had been placed on him or prevent the gelding from starting in the race. Now Rule 75 of the Rules of Racing, after setting forth that stakes, fees, and arrears must be paid before starting, defines arrears as follows: — “ Arrears includes any sums payable for fines, fees, entrance money, stakes, or forfeits in respect of any race at the same or any other meeting in the Australasian colonies, and any sum in respect of which any person has been declared a defaulter: Provided that arrears of forfeits in respect of a meeting at any other place than at which the race is run shall not be included unless notice of such forfeits being overdue has been notified by the club or delivered in writing, signed by the party claiming the arrears, to the secretary or stakeholder or to the person indebted before ten in the evening preceeding the race or published in the Official CalendarP Notification of the Austral forfeit was not given to the H.B.J.C. or the owner of Austral so it is clear that the provisions of Rule 75 were not carried out. A subsequent rule, number 80, provides that no person whose name is in the forfeit list can subscribe to any sweepstake, “ and no horse can be entered by him or under his subscription for any race.” But Mr Peters’ name was not in the forfeit list when Austral was entered, so that Rule 80 does not apply. The case is a very peculiar one, and no doubt the finding of the H.B.J.C. (through their solicitor) was based purely on the legal aspect of the case. But we maintain that such a decision was not a fair one, and seeing that the Rules of Racing do not ade-

quately cover the affair, we think that the H.B.J.C. stewards would have done better if they had considered the equity of the case and awarded the race to Austral. Rule 28 gave them that power, for it provides that “If any case occur which is not, or which in their opinion is not, provided for by these Rules, it shall be determined by the stewards or committee in such manner as they think just.” And that word “just” covers the whole case.