THE ROWLEY CASE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19159, 16 November 1927, Page 11

THE ROWLEY CASE.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE PBESS. Sir,—The Canterbury Jockey Club has accepted without complaint the verdict of the Conference judges, but that does not debar me from a persona] reply to .Mr Donnelly's letter, jn which my name so often appears. If -Mr Donnelly had been retained as counsel for- the accused, his choice of a line oi defence in attacking the procedure of the Judicial Committeewould, no doubt, do credit to his professional adroitness. It is a recognised tact that judicial stewards of racing clubs, having often to act promptly and hurriedly, are apt, to make mistakes. Hence the Conference has, in its wisdom, provided in the Rules of Racing, two subsequent courts of appeal, the first of which is the district committee of the metropolitan district in which the subject of enquiry arises. This is the court which, with the desire that full justice might speedily be done. 1 hastily summoned from far and near on Tuesday last to hear the appeals of the principals in the Rowley case, who had heeii held guilty of malpractice on Monday, and it" was upon the appeals against the verdict of tins district committee, that Mr Donnelly and two other gentlemen were called upon to adjudicate as the final court of appeal on Friday last. Now, whatever errors of omission or commission may have occurred at the racecourse enquiry, nono such have been alleged against the deliberations of the district committee of which i was also chairman. The whole of tho appellants were present, and the r aet (hat they were charged with complicity in the pulling of a horse was early and clearly stated. The evidence of the O.J.C. stewards' meetings was read, and the appellants had every opportunity afforded them to establish their innocence. Mr Donnelly says "Mr Gould, on two consecutive days on the same evidence, was a party to two unanimous decisions, each flatly contradicting the other." A departure from strict veracity in one so scrupulous in tho niceties of procedure as Mr Donnelly is surprising. There was further evidence, brought before the district committee, and if I understand the meaning of words, the decision of the district committee did not "flatly contradict" that of the Judicial Committee. Further, it is not correct to say that the verdict of the Judicial Committee was unanimous—there was one dissentient. In simple language, the position was this—the C.J.C. stewards were satisfied a swindle had been perpetrated, but were unable at the time to allocate the hlamo as between the owner and the trainer, and knowing that they had the right of appeal, disqualified them both. The jockey was looked upon as an instrument only, and received a minor penalty. In such cases, absolute proof of complicity or innocence is seldom available, and must be largely a matter of inference. At tho meeting of the district .committee the trainer accepted full responsibility for the instructions given to the jockey, and tho owner disavowed any whatsoever, with the result that the verdict was as follows:

"The district committee finds that the horse Rowley was deliberately pulled in the Riccarton Handicap. It further finds that Bagby was responsible for the instructions given to the jockey, which resulted in the pulling of the horse. There is no direct evidence . implicating Mr McDonald in tho pulling of the horse, or that he backed any other horse in the race. The committee, therefore, exculpates Mr McDonald and dismisses the appeals of the trainer and jockey." This is the verdict which was appealed against; and, submitted to Mr Donnelly and his colleagues, and this is the verdict to which Mr Donnelly's judgment made no reference, leaving the'trainer and jockey "in the air" without affirming either their guilt or their innocence.—Yours, etc., GEORGE GOULD. November 15th, 1927.