TROTTING CONTROL.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 January 1925, Page 1

TROTTING CONTROL.

WESTPORT CONTROL IXV ESTIMATED. ALLEGATIONS OF INCONSISTENT RUNNING. AY ELLINGTON, .Jan. 12. The Hoard of the Now Zealand Trotting Association met to-day. Present: Messrs I*. Selig (in Ihe chair), AY. 11. Denton, R. W, Short, R. A. Armstrong. C. F. Mark, J. M. Samson and AY. J. Hopkins. An apology for absence was received from Air H. AY. Kitehingham. •> Application was made for representation by counsel of both parties in an appeal connected with a protest by Keating and l'ascoe. owners of Some Wilkes, against T. B. Louisson’s Imprint. alleging inconsistent running. The protest had been upheld by the Westport Trotting Club, which disqualified Imprint lor the race. Some Wilkes’s driver hud also been disqualified for inconsistent running . Air Armstrong said it would be desirable to allow counsel to appear, as there had been criticism of the Gaming Jiill when il was alleged that, racing authorities deal arbitrarily with men who had no ability in putting up their ease. He considered that no harm would be done in allowing counsel to appear, and he moved accordingly. The chairman stated that the hoard had oil occasions refused to allow counsel to appear, and in such a simple ease lie could not see how counsel would be useful. There had been exceptions when the hoard thought it was in the interests of the parties to allow counsel but lie was not in favour of allowing counsel to appear in tin* present case. It was suggested by Air Mark that as it was an appeal with no fresh evidence counsel, could attend and simply make a statement on behalf ol their clients. Air Armstrong’s motion was adopted, and Al" AYilford and Air Hluir appear-

ed. Air AYilford stated that he wished to cross-examine witnesses. He thought the hoard would he helped hy evidence. Air A lark suggested that under the circumstances tlie appeal should lie adjourned until the board met in Christchurch. Air AYilford said lie appreciated the suggestion, hut he would like to have witnesses heard who were present. The secretary read evidence taken by the Westport Club's judicial committee from AY. R. l’ascoe. joint owner and driver of Imprint, and the stipendiary steward. Air A. G. Afalree. The lastnamed deposed that Imprint raced much better on the second day. lie produced the details of the respective times. Some AYilkes was driven more vigorously on the second day and improved ten seconds, l’ascoe accounted lor the difference hy the fact that time was lost oil the first day through break-

ing, and the hopples were then pulled up. Mr AYilford called l.es F. Rirkett. who stated that he disagreed with ATr Alalree's statement lhal Imprint got oil' well on the first day. The hopples were too long and the horse was not going too well throughout the race. There was a, barrier used, and it was the first time the horse had seen one. Witness did not back Imprint either day. Gaskill drove Imprint a few days later, when the horse ran second, again getting away badly. AATtiioss affirmed he did his best to win on the first day. Imprint was (hen owned by Curran. It was owned bv l.ouissou on (lie second day. Imprint was only a three-year-nld, and it was bis second meet ing. Questioned by Air Afalree witness denied that on the day of nominating ho

bail a try-out with other horses nominated on. the Richmond track. It was incorrect that he told the AAestporL .secretary that they all nominated from Richmond because tliev were having a try-out there. .Mr \ Blair, who appeared for Keating anil l’ascoe. staled that his client bad the impression dial the inquiry was into Imprint’s running. They did nol appreciate at the time that Some Wilkes' t imes had entile into quest ion. He Hierel'ore wished to call evidence to explain the discrepancy of len seconds’ improvement in Some AY il lees’s running on the second day. Air Willori.i called Frank Curran, of Nelson, who was owner and trainer ol Imprint when it, ran in the Stock-ton Handicap. Birkett had no interest m the-horse, which had boon laid up for over a mouth prior to the meeting. Imprint got oil badly on the first day and the hopples were found to be 08111. instead of Tit 5 A in.

To Air Afalree: There was 110 trial of Ini print prior .to the AA i-sl port meeting, lie nominated 1 rom Richmond. The reason he sold Imprint during the meeting was that be bad sold his billiard saloon and did not know when he would get work. He owned Louissini £SOO and sold Imprint to square that debt, lie hail never said there would bo trouble il Imprint won Hie second day.

Questioned by .Mr Selin, witness said lie ,11,1 nut luu-k Imprint cither day. He was uni. satisfied with him after his hud condition. The last last work he cave Imprint was in October, when ho won at (Ircyinouth. The chairman: Though you though., he had no chance, why did you -Mart him ! J Was it not taking the public down? • Witness: T. was not “shook” on him. 1 thought lie might have no chance. 1 ,|id not know how he would handle the harrier. There might have been a ~bailee, though I did not like it. I would not throw away a driver s fee for nothin'?. Ml- IWsdroo risked wilnoss if it whs not. a remarkable performance I'o.r a horse which had no recent last work in cover the last mile in -MO and the last half-mile in 1. .k Witness: No. lie was a remarkable horse. Mr Wilfold said he wished to prove by additional witnesses that the rtipendiarv steward was absolutely inrorrecti in saving that Imprint got away well on the first day. He honed this Opportunity would he given early, as his client was disqualified, and even prohibited from going on racecourses. Mr Selig replied that the case probably wmdd he completed at the hoard’s February meeting. THE SOME WILKES CASK. ■Reverting to the case of Some Wilkes Mr Blair stated his client. Pascoc. had not appreciated wlron the "WestpoitHnquiry was held that there was anything involved except Imprint's He wished to explain the ton seconds’ difference in time between the first and second day. This was not done at the original inquiry, owing to the misconception lie had indicated. He called W. M. It. L. Pascoe. joint owner of Some "Wilkes, who said he drove this horse at Westport. He broke ihteo times on the first day in the Bulier Handicap, the reason being that his hopples were too long to steady him around the bends. Some Wilkes went dead even in the straights, but he stepped short at corners and broke. Witness considered he lost three to four seconds in each ot the first tvu breaks, and four to live seconds in tne third break, when witness had some difficulty in preventing him from coming down. After this he pulled up on Norwood, which had been leading. He did nothing with the hopples that day. but next day he pulled them up onehole to get the horse round the bonds. Witness was sure he would have won but for the breaks. Mr Blair put in a written statement, from Mr IT. Ik Lawrv. .•stipendiary Magistrate at Westport, that he particularly noted Some Wilkes lire axing three times in the race, the hist break being particularly bad. Counsel also produced n certificate showing that Keating, the joint owners invested UO Oil Some Wilkes in that race. To Mr Malree: Witness would expect to see some mention of these incidents in the official description of the race.