Sporting and Dramatic REVIEW . AND . LICENSED VICTUALLERS' GAZETTE with which is incorporated the weekly standard Thursday, October 11, 1900

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XI, Issue 512, 11 October 1900, Page 10

Sporting and Dramatic REVIEW . AND . LICENSED VICTUALLERS' GAZETTE with which is incorporated the weekly standard Thursday, October 11, 1900

Oub Napier correspondent BBjSfflD Wired ° n Tueßday night tbafe » TOTE BETTING-' as an outcome of the protect against Dr Bill in the Hurdle Race yesterday, Mr R. W. Paterson, his owner, has been disqualified for twelve months for tote betting, as he admitted when under examination by the stewards that'he had sent money away to Christchurch and Auckland for his horses Ringlet and Dr Bill upon both days, and that he expected to receive the same dividends from the bookmakers as the machine returned.

This is a subject which hae been occu py in s fche vep y QUEENSLAND, closest attention of some of the most prominent racing men in Queensland lately. The introduction into the Legislative Assembly by a private member, in the person of Mr Jenkinson, of a Bill to amend the Totalisator Restriction Act (the objects of which have already been quoted) stirred up all the fighting instincts of the letter-writing representative of the Queensland Turf Club and the Brisbane Olub syndicate (Mr Richard Newton), who, with questionable prudence, rushed into print to denounce any a‘tempt at interference with existing Totalisator privileges. Had he been wise, Mr Newton would have allowed the proposed amending Bill to pass at least through its preliminary stages with as little hostile demonstration as possible. The only effect of Mr Newton’s letter was to put the “ Oppositionists ” upon their mettle. Mr Peter Murphy, one of the moneyed men, and an owner of racehorses, in reply to Mr Newton’s demand for a naming of the changes which are necessary for the subjugation of existing abuses, gave the following:—“ 1. The abolition as members of the executive of the Queensland Turf Olub of all persons who are concerned in private racing enterprises such as he is. . 2. The Government £of the Queensland Turf Olub by men who will not permit the true interests of the sport to be subservient to private gain and profit. 3. The extermination of proprietary clubs, such as Breakfast Oreek, or their careful regulation within limits, so that their operations will not (as at present) unduly press upon the true interests of the sport. 4. The complete division of all profits made by the Totalisator from the private pockets of individual* to the source to which it was always properly in. tended—that is, to the revenues of genuine racing clubs formed for the purpose of carrying on the sport of racing and improving the breed of horses.” The Bill came on for its second reading in the Assembly on Friday, September 28th, and the debate lasted for a couple of hours, and was then adjourned until November 29th. A large majority of the members seemed to be strongly in favour of the Bill’s general principles* says a writer in Brisbane, though some of the speakers advocated alterations in committee, and there is every prospect of the Bill being passed..

' mrv The decision of the Racing ConMINERVA II ■ ference in the case of Messrs Bec_ DI JUSTICE- k ott an( j Michael McAuliffe, and Minerva II must be pronounced unjust, biassed, and there can be little doubt that it was preconceived. The history of the case is pretty wellknown, but there is no barm in repeating the main features. When Mr Beckett journeyed over to Sydney for a holiday, he saw Minerva racing at the pony meetings, and took a fancy to her. On returning to Auckland he asked the Auckland Racing Club authorities whether she would be allowed to race here, and on receiving an affirmative reply, he bought the mare and brought her over to New Zealand. Minerva II —as she is known here—raced at Ellerslie and at Takapuna. She won at both courses, and her lessee in due time received the stakes. She was entered at the Egmont Racing Olub’s Meeting, but was not allowed to start until Mr Beckett and Mr McAuliffe had made a declaration stating that she was not disqualified from running in New Zealand in her own company. Before get ting the declaration, the Egmont Racing Club communicated with the Australian Jockey Club, and learned that the mare was disqualified from running at their meetings, because she had competed at unregistered pony meetings. Still, the Club took the declaration, and afterwards considered the question, and ultimately disqualified Mr Beckett and Mr McAuliffe for two years for fraudulent entry and wilfully false declaration. Mr Beckett appealed to the Taranaki Jockey dub—the Metropolitan body of the district—which unanimously upheld bis appeal, and exonerated him as being entirely free from blame. Then the Egmont Racing Club took the case to the Racing Conference which has reversed the decision of the Taranaki Jockey Club, and has endorsed the finding of the Egmont Racing Club disqualifying Mr Beckett and Mr McAuliffe for two years. So much for the history of the case. When the Racing Conference was sitting in July last, Mr R. H. Nolan brought this question up, and the Chairman (Sir George Clifford) stated that the proper course for the Egmont dub to pursue was to disqualify the persons concerned, and then the matter could be properly, threshed out. Sir George difford wm one of the judges at Wellington last Saturday. Good taste if nothing else should have prevented him from taking part in an inquiry into a case which he had clearly prejudged some three months ago. But it did not, and Mr Beckett, who had no chance of equity, has been sentenced to two year’s disqualification. Now Mr Beckett had the authority of the Auckland Racing Club to race his mare in New Zealand, and he made his declaration with perfect confidence, knowing certainly that Minerva IL was not disqualified for any malpractice. The accusation that his declaration was wilfully false will not bear criticism for he was perfectly open about the matter from first to last. How the judges, appointed by the Bacing Conference,

have arrived at the conclusions which are con-

tained in their judgment is a great puzzle, but , to the greater number of.eportsmen it is apparent that the decision lacks common sense and justice, and is without equity. There is also another view of the matter. This case savours of persecution. Mr Beckett is a bookmaker, and Sir George Clifford’s attitude to bookmakers is wellknown, and here again is another reason why the Chairman of the Conference should no have taken any part in the proceedings of the Final Appeal Court The matter is one that ought not to rest where it is. It is contended that Minerva II is disqualified She is only debarred from taking part in A.J.C. Meetings by reason of running at unregistered pony meetings, but she could run in open com pany in Victoria, and the Auckland Racing Club allowed her to run here. There is no question of disqualification for malpractice. Mr Beckett and Mr McAuliffe in our opinion have been unjustly and harshly treated for an offence which —if one has been committed —was committed on the ground that the Auckland Racing Club had seen nothing in the case to warrant interference.