Conference Rejects Remit To Amend Rule On Appeal Judges

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27396, 8 July 1954, Page 4

Conference Rejects Remit To Amend Rule On Appeal Judges

A remit brought forward at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Trotting Conference in Christchurch yesterday by Mr A. E. Forrest, on behalf of the Auckland Trotting Club, was “tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the president.” said Mr A. L. Matson, the president. The remit, which sought to substitute the word “executive” for the first word, “president,” in the third line of Rule 368 (1), was lost by an overwhelming majority. Rule 368 (1) provides for the appointment of three appeal judges by the president of the conference, and the Auckland club sought to have this changed so that appeal judges would be appointed by the executive. When moving the motion, Mr Forrest said there was nothing personal in the remit, but his club felt •it would be more satisfactory if the appeal judges were approved by the full executive. Mr Matson said that judges were appointed so that a man had the right of appeal to impartial persons. After careful consideration, the president would hand the secretary of the conference . a list of persons to be ap- § reached to see whether they would e willing to sit as appeal judges. The secretary would then aproach the men, and if they so wished, they were appointed. Mr Matson said he was sure there had been no cause for complaint until a recent case. Three South Island judges had been appointed to hear the Cressey appeal, said Mr Matson. A few years previously three North Island judges had been appointed when the Chamfer appeal had been heard. In both cases they were men of the highest integrity. “Can anything be fairer than that?" Mr Matson asked.

“I feel that this is niggling away at a rule that has stood the test of time,” he said. “It would be difficult to get the 13 members of the executive to agree on the appointment of judges within the seven days allowed- under ttie rules for the appointment of judges after the lodging of appeals. The idea is not practicable, as members of the executive are widely separated.” He would prefer to see the method of appointment of judges left as at present, said the treasurer (Mr O. Hutchinson).

If, as Mr Matson claimed, the judges were not appointed by the president, but only nominated by him, he submitted that the remit was not changing anything, except that appointments would be made by the executive, said Mr Forrest.

He wished to reaffirm that there was nothing personal in the remit, said Mr W. W. Massey (Auckland). He had been one of the judges in the Chamfer case, he said. “You can make any alteration in the wording of the remit you like,” said Mr Matson to Mr Forrest. Mr Forest replied that he was quite satisfied with the remit.

Mr J. E. Farrell (Oamaru) said he agreed with Mr R. S. Green (Gore), who had said the rule, if the remit was passed, would be a very clumsy one. “It would not make sense,” he said.

The executive could appoint the president as one of the appeal judges if the change were made, said Mr Forrest.

A very weak statement had been put forward in favour of the remit, said Mr A. Anderson (Wellington). He suggested that the remit be put to the vote immediately. Mr Matson put the remit to the vote, and it was lost on the voices.