FREE ADVICECASE

Hokitika Guardian, 11 July 1928, Page 3

FREE ADVICECASE

BOARD’S FINAL DECISION

ACTION OF CLUB NOT UPHELD

WELLINGTON, July 9

What has become known ns tlic Free Advice case has been a main topic .of conversation in trotting circles during tho past few months, and possibly tho end of it was heard at the meeting of the Board of the New Zealand Trotting Association in V ellington to-day, when the Board decided to reverse the decision of the New Brighton Trotting Club and to award the race to Free Advice. At the Autumn Meeting of the New Brighton Trotting Club the stewards held an enquiry into alleged interference by Free Advice with Baron Bingen during tho running of the Eclipse Stakes. As a result Free Advice, who finished first, was placed second, and first place was awarded to Baron Bingen, and J. Bryce, driver of Free Advice, was fined £25 for interference. When the evidence uns placed before the Board that body decided to refer tho matter back to ihc club with the idea of giving the club an opportunity of dispelling the rumours that J. McCreanor, a patrol steward, who had given evidence, was. financially interested in the race.

At a subsequent meeting of tho club members had a good deal to saj concerning the action of Air AY . Hayward, a 'member of the Association, who had discussed the matter with members of the New Brighton Club s Judicial Committee. The club upheld Ihc attitude of the Judicial Committee in the action had taken. AY lien the matter again came before the Board it was decided to ask tho club what portion of tlio evidence supplied showed that Bryce was guilty of wilful interference.

At to-day’s meeting Air AY illiams, tlio chairman, stated that there were two features of the ease to l>e considered, firstly, the reversal of the platings, then the question of the fine imposed upon J. Bryce. In the first instance he would move that as the evidence did not show that the interference had effected the result of the race the judge’s lilneings he restored, and that Free Advice ho placed first and Baron Bingen second. Tho resolution was carried.

The general opinion expressed by members was that, if the offence was wilful, then the imposition of a £25 fine was altogether inadequate to meet the offence, and a term of suspension or disqualification should have been imposed. The evidence did not show that the offence, if any, was wilful. The Association could not disturb the finding of the club on a question of fact which concerned Bryce’s driving, but the Association could vary the penalty imposed. Members also believed that the evidence of Mr McCreanor was given conscientiously, hut anvono was likely to err in such a case, and the fact as to whether Bryce or Clarke was responsible had not been clearly proved. It seemed that there might have been something contributory on the part of both drivers. After further discussion it was resolved • “That with regard to the finding bv the club that the interference was wilful the Board is of the opinion that there was no evidence to justify this finding, and that the a - tion of the club in. fining J. Bryce £0.5 he not endorsed. Also, that the Board endorses the establishment of the fact that a contact of sulky wheels took place, hut varies the decision of the dub by cautioning both Bryce and Clarke for careless driving.” It was decided to accede to the application of Messrs McKendrick Bros, for a refund of the appeal deposit lodged with the Association.