FOOTBALL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2279, 26 August 1908, Page 3

FOOTBALL.

.Members of tlio represen tat ivo team selected to piny against llinvko's Bay on September 6th are requested to attend at tho Domain this evening ami also on Friday evening for tho purposes of training. The team to represent the combined ironworkers in a football match with Mr. J .11. Ormond’s employees'will bo picked from the following:—Fullback, Jas. Third; three-quarters, T. Cane, A. Davys, Jas. Brown ; fiveeighths, W. Mitchell, K. llumphvies; half, J. Kidd; forwards, J. U. Leydon (wing), T. Jones, W. Bradley, G. Hingston, A. Ward, H. Westwood, G. Pollock, F. Creamer, A. •Bcere, D. Mo.llor, J. O’Neill, J. Johnston, Thornell, Dorn, A. lloron, G. Aston, Potilia, G. McGregor. MANAWATU UNION.

A PLAYER DISQUALIFIED

[Press Association.]

PALMERSTON N„ August 25. 11. U. Hewitt was disqualified for three years by tlio Manaw-atu Rugby Union to-night for failing to attend on the Union to explain his action in refusing to play against Wanganui on loth inst., and for writing an insulting letter to tlio Union, in respect thereto. RUGBY REFORM. CANT ERB URY SUPPORT. [Press Association.]

CHRISTCHURCH, August 25. At a meeting of tho Canterbury Rugby Union to-niglit a letter was received from tho Otago Union asking if Canterbury would support a requisition to hold a special meeting of tho New Zealand Union to consider suggested amendments in the laws of tho game; It- was resolved to support the jjropos.ii to call the liieoting. THE MAORI TEAM. A COURT CASE.

United Press Association, Copyright (Received August 25, 10.12 p.m.)

SYDNEY, August 25. In tho Equity Court, in the caso of Jack versus Asher and members of ,tho Maori team, the Court made a decree by consent on behalf of Asher and eleven others of tlie defendants, declaring there was clue to the plaintiff for costs of the suit and damages the sum of £165, which should bo charged on any moneys in the hands of the Football League due to defendants. The Court dismissed the suit with costs against four others of the defendants, who had not been served with a statement of claim. Tho Court made an order against nineteen others, in default of appearance, in the same terms as against the first-men-tioned twelve.