NGINGONGINGO CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 4 March 1932, Page 5

NGINGONGINGO CASE

DECISION REVERSED

CHRISTCHURCH .March 3

The Ngingongingo appeal case was continued in the 'Supreme Court yesterday. Counsel for Mr Morten, contended that the question before the Court was not whether the horse h ;! .! run inconsistently, or unsatisfactorily, but whether the judges had acted beyond the rules, or contrary to natural principles of justice, from the rules. It was evident that Trotting bodies had tried to fonnuhm- ru !,-s which followed the principles of natural justice, but it was 'Submitted that defendants ):ad (misinterpreted, at. any -rate, the spirit of those rules.

The defendants contended that it was not necessary to cite the plaintiff before a conference of judges, but that Association and the Auckland Club had been cited in accordance with the rides. Counsel submitted that the rules could be so interpreted, as to make it necessary to call the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendants said, he hoped to show that, not only was treatment received by plaintiff in accord with the rules of trotting, bull also in accord with natural justice. This, ho said, is simply the case of a man with an imaginary grievance, who when he was pursued all the .remedies allowed to 'him by rules of the sport he follows, decides to go further and invoke Vie assistance of the law courts, although he contracted to abide by the rules of trotting, and not invoke the aid of any court. He breaks his contract, and we have, for the first time in the .history of galloping or trotting, an appeal to this court.

Counsel contended that the plaintiff claimed that he had a r ght to appear before appeal judges. Defendants held that lie had no such right. Plaintiff had made his explanation to the Association and this was before the appeal. The judges said lie had 'no right to be called upon to give other evidence. The decision was reversed.