THE COLDFINCH AFFAIR.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1725, 5 December 1887, Page 2

THE COLDFINCH AFFAIR.

THE CASH TO BBS RE-OPENED.

A meeting of the Stewards of the * Ashbarton Kaoing Olub, was held at the ■ Olub'a roono, Commercial Hotel, on Satur- ] day evenlDg, to consider certain oorres- : 1 pondenoe m reference to the Goldfinch J < c*se, which had been received from Me 1 Max Friodlander. There were preae< t — ' Messrs 0. W. Purnell (Chairman), Stitt, < Denshire, Thomas, McOwen, J. 0. N. ; ' Grlgg, Upton and Dr Leahy. ' The minatea of the previous meeting ' having been read and confirm ad, < The Ohairman eaid that the present ' meeting had been called m consequence ' of a letter which had been received from Me M, Friadlander, asking thorn to re- ' open the question, the application being mainly m regard to Dr Leahy's ovidenoe, given at the last meeting of Stewards. He would ask the Secretary to read the letter. The Seoretavy read tha letter as follow a :— Ashbarton, November 26, 1887. The Stewards of the ABhburton Raoing Club, Aahburton. Gentleman,— With reference . to the Goldfinoh oaso, decided on the 24th laat by you, I note with muoh surprlae that m the newspapers Dr. L9»hy is reported to have said that " he, Dr Leahy, told Mr Max Frledlander m a joonlar way that he would pull him up before the {Stewards for doing what he had, and that Mr Frledlander afterwards oame back sod explained that if ha had not rlddon the mare m the preliminary himself he would have had no dividend." Not this statement i> not correot, and I am prepared to prove it incorrect. You will remember, gentlemeu, that when witnesses were examined I was not present, nor was any* one present on my behalf, nor was the evldenoe read over to me. Oomequently, I had no opportunity of contradicting this statement, and as I never knew of any suoh statement until after your deolsion was arrived at, it follows, of coarse, that up to the present I have had no opportunity of denying it, or replying to it, or of protecting myself m any way. Consequently It appears that I have a right to requosi you to re open this matter to enable me to be heard on my own behalf, and to contradiot this statement of Dr Leahy'a. This, I am prepared to do by myself, and by two independent witnesses, whenever you will be prepared to hear my Bide of the matter, and I urge upon you to do bo m the spirit of fairplay to give me a fair opportunity of denying the statement, which up to the present, I have not had ; and the more especially may I urge this upon you as It appears that at your morning three resolutions were proposed and lost before the statement was made, thus showing that this incorreot statement made at the last moment, behind my back, without my knowledge, must have materially inflaenoed your decision. I remain, Gentlemen, Yours faithfully, Mix Fbibdlander. The Chairman said that another letter had been received that day whloh ha would also ask the Secretary to read.

The second letter was read as follow*:— Ashburton, December 3, 1887, ' The Stewards of the ABhborton Racing Club, Aehburton, Gentlemen, — With reference to my letter of the 26th ult, requesting tho Stewards to reconsider their decision re the Goldfinch affair, I have now to request the Stewards to allow me to withdraw that letter. I have adopted this course after calm and nature consideration of the whole c»ee, and have reluotantly yielded to the solicitation of numerous friends who have represented to me that to keep the matter open further would be Injurious both to the Olub aud the sport of raoing, tirhose best interests I have always had, and-BttHhavo, at nearr. Tne fact of my two brothers having occupied a prominent position m the Club, and being naturally desirous of terminating so unpleasant an affair, has also influenced my conrae of action 1 have already admitted, and now reiterate the statement, that I was guilty of an error of judgment In riding past the Judge's stand m colors, but I am entirely itmooent of the motives imputed to me, and by this withdrawal of the letter for the reasons above stated I do not for one moment admit either the justice or aoouraoy of your deolaion, or the correctness of Dr Leahy's evidence, on whioh that decision was based. Youra faithfully, Max Fhiedlandek, The Chairman aald that if the aecond letter had been received m time, notice wonld have been sent to the Stewards, and they would not have been brought there unneoeaaarily, Mr Deaohßre did not think they were brought unnecessarily. Mr Thomaß thought that If they considered the last letter it would not redound much to the credit of the Olub. Mr Frledlander asked to withdraw the first letter but still affirmed the statements made In that letter. The Chairman said that Mr Friedlander averred that the deoislon of the Stewards had been based on the evidence given by Dr Leahy. He had not been for one moment Influenced by that evidence j Mr Frlediauder's own admissions had been quite sufficient- It was all very well for Mr Friedlander to harp on th'la point, but If they had never heard Dr Leahy 'b evidence they would otill have Inflicted punishment. If there had been any difference of opinion among the Stewards, it had boon rb to what the punishment Bhould be— whether they should fine or ditqualify. Mr Thomas did not like the letter that had been received that evening. He thought It contained a lot of oovered insult. Mr Denshire was not prepared to let the matter close, with a letter auoh aa the one just received. The Chairman aeked If anyone present was prepared to move a resolution. Mr Thomas eaid tbe case would have been different if Mr Friedlander admitted that he was wrong. The letter was InI correct, it stated that three motions had been lost before the Stewards oame to a decision, whereas In reality the motions were withdrawn. The Chairman corroborated Mr Thomas and said the motions had been withdrawn, not beoanse the Stewards were m doubt as to whether they Bhould lnfliot a penalty or not, but because they were m doubt as to the amount of the penalty. Mr Thomas said there waa a direct oharge against I)r Leahy contained In the letter.

The Chairman agreed that this waa bo, Me Thomas : We, qb Stewards, should not let that go by. Mr Thomas asked that the letter be read again. Letter read. The Chairman did not think it should go oat to the public that the deolaloo of the Stewards waa baied on Dr Leahy's evidence. Dr Leahy said that he had no deslro to paraeonte Mr Frledlander. The statement he made at the last meeting, ho made as a matter of duty. He was sorry Mr Friedlander had not brought forward any evidence to refute that statement. He (Dr Leahy) was at » loss to know how he would do It, and was ourloua to know how he would attempt it. The statement was made to him privately when no one waa within earshot, He oould understand how Mr Friedlander might bring evidence to show that he had aatd a particular thing, bat It w»s past comprehension how he oould bring evldenoe that he had not said a thing. If Mr Friedlander had withdrawn his first letter (n a generous way he would hayi bgeg fatlijied, bat be did pot lee

hlfi way to accept a withdrawal aaoh as the one they had before them. The Ohai.m.ns^id that Me Fnedlander made a great point of the reluctance of the Stewards to come to a deoialon. But It was not a pleasant thing to sit In judgment on any man ; it would not be plentjant m ragnrd to a stranger, let alone one like Mr Friedlander, whom they all : knew well, and who had been pr m'nentiy associated with the Olub. To have to deal wifch a case of this sort was very diatastoful to him ; m this instance especially so, for reasons which doubtless ; they all knew, and had he thought that auch a case would have come before them, ho would not have taken the position he occupied m connection with the Olab. Mr Friedlander took this reluotance of the Stewards to be hesitancy In coming to a deoieloD, but they were all of one mind m the matter. If Dr Leahy's evldenoe had been struck out the cane would not have been affected. That evldenoe only confirmed what had previously been heard. Mr Friedlander's own admissions were quite sufficient to go upon. After a brief conversational disousßlo~>, the Chairman asked if anyone would propose a resolution, or that the letter might be received. There was no good In re-opening the oaae if Mr Friedlander were not prepared to attend.

Mr Denshire took it for granted that the letters would be published. If so It would not redound to the credit of the Olub to let the matter fall through, aa it would be a natural inference that the Olub wanted to hash it up. He indicated his Intention of moving that the second letter oould not be entertained. Mr Thomas considered the matter should be gone on with. Dr Leahy said the letter was too patroniztog. Mr Thomas quoted that portion of the letter m which Mr Friedlander said that he did not admit the justice of the dectaion of the Stewards. Dr Leahy said that the Stewards did not want to get let off m a patronizing way like that. If Mr Friedlander withdrew his first letter unreservedly well and good, but they oould not consider a patronizing lettar like the second. Mr Denshlre's motion, which had m the meantime been added to m consequence of suggestions, was rend as follows: —"That inssmuoh as Mr Friedlander's letter of this date says it is iojurions to the interests of the Olub and to sporting generally to re-open the Goldfinoh casa hia application to withdraw hia letter of 26th ultimato be not entertained, the Stewards being of opinion that it is to the interest of the Olub that the matter be further sifted."

Mr Denshire Indicated his intention of l moving that the letters he published. Mr Thomas Buggested that that part of Mr Friedlandor'a letter m whioh he stated thit be did not sgrre with the decision of the Stewards or the correctness of Dr Leahy's evidence should be inserted In the motion. The Chairman said that if they put, that m it would be tantamount to an admission that their decision was based on Dr Leahy's evidence. Mr Thomas said that Mr Fried'.ander gave foar reasons why he wished the matter closed, and for all these reasons the Stewards wished it re-opened That was why he wanted the addition to the motion. The Chauman said that he did not wiah Mr Friedlander to fix them m that way to one little bit of evidence. The real evidence on which their decision had been based had been given at their meeting held on the raceoourae. That evidence had not been published m any of the papers. Mr Friedlander gave a narrative of what occurred, and although he (tbe Chairman) did not see the affair, Mr Friedlander' a evidence was quite sufftcient to satisfy him. Mr Thomas said that the Chairman did not follow him m his meaaing. Mr Friedlander stated certain reaaona why he wished to withdraw, and the Stewaids said that for each and everyone of those reasons they desired it re-opened. The Chairman said that he quite understood why Mr Thomas wished the addition made to the motion, but the sentence was a very artfully constructed one, and if they put it m the motion, ii would be an admission that their decision was based on Dr Leahy's evidence, and as such it would go forth to tbe public, and play into Mr Friedlandor's hands.

Mr Thomas said that the difficulty would be got over by adding to the motion the words " more especially as our decision was not arrived at on Dr Leahy 'a evidence ' Mr Denshire hardly agreed with the proposed addition, as he thought Dr Leahy'B evidence had something to do with the decision. Mr Thomas said that before Dr Leahy's evidence was given, the motion passed was before the meeting Mr Penshire admitted this, bat said that some of the Stewards thought the motion was goincj too far. Mr Thoraaß said that Dr Leahy's cvi denoe Bimply clinohed the matter. A gentleman preeeat suggested that the addition to the motion should be made to read "that the decision was not arrived at on Ur Leahy's evidence alone." The woad " aloDe," was then added to the motion, the Chairman saying that he recognised Dr Leahy's was an important bit oi evidence, but it was not on that alone that the decision of the .Stewards waß based. Before that evidence wae given, there had been a motion before the meeting for a £5 fine, and the only effect of the evidence was that it might have raised the fine to £10, but Mr Friedlander said that but for the statement of Dr Leahy, the whole thing would have dropped. Mr Denshires motion, which was seconded by Mr J. 0, N. Qrigg, was then put to the meeting* With the additions that had been made, it re ad as follows : — " That inasmuch as Mr Friedlander's letter of this date states that it would be injurious to the interest of the Club and of spcrtiDg generally to re-open the Goldfinch case, and further that he does not admit ' either the justice or tbe

I accuracy ' of the fctewards' decision, 'or . the correctness of Dr Leahy's evidence on I which that decision waa based,' his i application to withdraw h : s letter of the i 20th ult. be not ontertainod, the Stewards' being of opioion that it will be for the i interests of the Club that the matter , should be further sifted, more especially ; ns the decision was not based on Dr ' Leahy's evidence alone." ! The motion was unanimously carried. Mr Thomas read a motion he had prei pared similar m effect to the foregoing, but it was not pressed. Mr Denshire' moved that the letters be ( published. This was agreed to. The Chairman said the position now was, as they had not allowed the first letter to be withdrawn, it was before them for consideration. Dr Leahy supposed they had e;ot to appoint a day, for the re-opening of the case, when Mr Fried lander would attend. The Chairman said the appointment of the day rested entirely with the Stewards. Dr Leahy thought it was no use appointing a day if Mr Friedlander did not attend. Could the Stawatds take evidence ? the Chairman sa"d they certainly could, Dr Leahy moved— " That the Stewards meet next Haturday night, December 10th, to re-open the Goldfinch case." Mr Thomas thought that Mr Friedlander should have every opportunity of withdrawing his letter unconditionally. Dr Leahy made the suggested addition to his motion, which then read as follows : — ''That the Stewards meet next Saturday night, December 10th, to re-open the Go'dfinch case, unless Mr Friedlander "unconditionally withdrawe h,fe JeJter by Tuesday tYeaing,"

The motion, m its amended form, vra seconded by Mr Thomas and carried. This was all the business m regard to the Goldfinch case, and the Stewards then proceeded to the consideration of other matters.