A HORSE'S RUNNING

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 7, 9 July 1923, Page 8

A HORSE'S RUNNING

ALLEGATION AGAINST OWNER

APPEAL BEFORE TROTTING-

BOARD,

An appeal against* the decision 'of the Marlborough Racing Club in disqualifying him an his-horse. Chaucer for two years for alleged inconsistent running, was brought before the N.Z. Trotting Association Board ' this ."morning in Wellington, by N.'.; Emms. ' The appeal constituted the ■main business of the meeting. ' Miv.P.* S'.'-Selig presided.The appellant was represented by Mr. A T. Donnelly - (Christcliiirch).". . Mr. F.. F. Reid:-re,presented the club: It was..intimated- that the appellant had evidence that, was not'called at the hearing before -the stewards,- to show that the brother put money on the horse on behalf of appellant,:.also;as to the condition of the-horse/-. . '■'■..*

Mr.' Reid suggested that if.fresh evidence was allowed, the. appeal, should be referred to the committee again. He said no evidence had been available as* to the running on .the first day' of ■ the meeting; (The evidence,of-betting showed that Emms had..£lio ton "one horse, and £60 on another, and an.: alleged bet of £25 on his own -horse. Betting also took place on the second* day/ Emms had £60 on Chaucer. .The liorse won easily. The bet on. the .first day then came into question. 'Emms said he usually backed on commission, but saw his hors6 was not lame, and decide.d to back him. A different story was given, by appellant's brother, and the stewards considered that the stories were so inconsistent that, they could not accepte ither. On going fully into the betting transactions, tho stewards decided that Chaucer had not been a trier. Emms was given ample opportunity to call evidence.

Mr. Donnelly said it was not in dispute that the betting transactions were sufficient to justify an inquiry by tho stewards. Every opportunity "had been given to Emms to give evidence. Emms was brought before the stewards, and at short notice was asked to explain. It was quitel likely that Tinder the circumstances the best, use would not be made or the opportunities given. The betting returns, of Emms showed that he must bet recklessly, as he in two years put £8000 through at the 1 Marlborou^h meetings. The fact that appellant w°as upset was evidenced by the fact that he' even mixed up bets of £110 and £60 ±ne horse had not been on a raoecourse for some weeks, and, on being brought down to Blenheim, was injured, fast work being impossible owing to tho horse being in bandages. On the first day the track was hard. It rained in the evening, and the track oh the second day was softer, and the' horse ap+T 1'! ,to, have >nefited by the run on the first day. It was usual for Emms to have.£soo and £600 on the totalisareckless that any_ inference .placed on his betting transactions wa s . unwarranted in the race which Chaucer won on the second day Emms had £60' on his horse ™ £, 60 ?"' J6ff Dill °n in tho racl: .Had he been, sure of winning, as suir!ut nf l 1? W6lll<l'Sm'e].y 1»™ I»d tile bulk of his money, on his own horse He submitted that the' hostile' inference drawn, by the stewards was not just?

thJ'frJo^ decided ™t to deal with