Trainer And Two Jockeys Are Fined

Chronicle (Levin), 1 March 1948, Page 7

Trainer And Two Jockeys Are Fined

The seripusness of giving misleading or incompldte evidencei by witnesses, and the growing tendeney oi witnesses to withhold in judiciai inquiries information that should be. freeiy given, was stressed by the committee of the Manawatu Racing Glub foilowing the conclusion of the inq.uiry into charges laid by Mr. B. N. Sandliands against O. J. Thompson, traiher, and A. C. Messervy and T. Wehster, jockeys, that they had given tinsatisf actory evidence at the inquiry which followed the running of the Manwatu Cup on' Decemher 20. In a general preface to the decisions of the coiumittee in relation to the charges laid by Mr. Sandilands which, it w'as held, had beeh sustaiii'ed, it was emphasised that the. decisions of all conimittees naturally dejiended almost entirely upon the evidence produced il any inquiry. In the ease of tlie inquiry into the incident which occurred towards the huish of the Manawatu Cup race, it was pointed out that the ora! evidence given by witnesses who *appeared before the judiciai eommittee was of such a character that had it not been for extraneous evidence that was unexpectedly niade available to the judiciai eommittee, it was possible, indeed even probable, that grievous iujustiee and injury would have boeu in tiicted upon the owner (T. Coltinanj, trainer (L. A. Pine) and rider (L. J. Ellis) of the horse Gay Stroller which won the Manawatu Cup. It was also stressed by the eommittee that the time had arrived when a general warning should be issued that strong action would he taken in all cases where it had heen made evident that witnesses had in any way given misleading evidence whether actively or hy withholding information or facts. The coiumittee 's decision was that Turoa Webster, who had given' evidence of an unsatisfactory or misleading nature, should be iined £10; that the evidence of C. J. Thomson had been unsatisfactory in that, liaving had an uuinterrupted vievv of .the liorses travei ling aJmost directly towards him, he should have seen the qiajor incident, and that from this viewpoint, his evidence had been misleading. Ile w;is iined £10, and A. C. ALesservy, wliose evidence was unsatisfaciory aiid' misleading, particularly having regard to the main incident, was Iined £20.