TROTTING APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 2 April 1925, Page 4

TROTTING APPEAL

GREY CLLIS SfCCEEDS. av TKI.UOI!.*' it —1-ItKKH ABOM.. COl-VKIOIi-r CHRfSTfTII'RCH, April. I. Tin- foil, iv. ill is the dvi.-ioii if the Appeal Judges ill the al-peal by tinGrey mouth Trotting ( lu'o to the New /.aland Tretting (,'eiiferrnee against I Die ruling of tin- New Zealand Trolling AMillion in < oniiedinn with the Some U ilkes-l ini l int (ii.se in the matter of an appeal mulor tlt*" New Zealand Rules of I’roli-iir;, by l be GivvnnmHi Tnlliug Club against the dt-i isiori 111 the New Zealand Trotting As.i.i! j .111 -inh „|i,.il in Ib- i - -01 11 1 ii ii ol ! ihe A: soeiatinn | assed mi 11th. l-'i b- ! rnary. 1920: •

“We three appeal judges, duly npp,.inlcd Under Rule 2! of the Rules of Trolling, to hear and determine flic ,ai,l a] peal, having heard Mr Iviteliiagham (repi-esenting the Groymouth Trotting -Club) and Messrs Selig and Williams (rci-.es-iiting the New Zealand Trolling, Amir iation) and having c'irefill!;.- considered the urgumeiils adduced. Ii ml as I"I low ,;

(I) The decision of Ha- New Zealand Trotting; Assoeiution. as conveyed in the letter of Hie Secretary .of the Assaeiation to Hie Gl'eymoiith Trotting Club, dated 12th. February. 1925. uas that ‘-allowing di-qiialilied persons to take part at your meeting was a contravention of the rules.”

(•_>) The notice of appeal sets out ‘•that the Xew Zealand Trotting Association erroneously decided tunt. the Uroyinniiih Trotting Club had c-iintra-vened the rub's of trolling by allowing; bar es owned by 1.. I'. Lockett and V. . ]». [., I’n.sc'oo to start at its meeting” H is to he regretted that the notice of appeal does not actually cover the

decision come to by the Asso ialion tiiii the representatives of the Association appearing before us ctid not Hike this point, and contented themselves with answering the appellant c iuh's argument that the horses wore eligible to .start 'at the Creymnul li club's meeting