WHO OWNS HER?

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 546, 1 June 1933, Page 5

WHO OWNS HER?

(Press Assn. — '

earthquake case JUDGE BLAIR UPHOLDS DISQUALIFICATION DECISION POWER OF CONFERENCE

By Telegraph — Copyright),

Christchurch, Wednesdaj An appeal by the owner of a racehorse for setting aside a disqualification imposed on him and three other persons and the racehorse, Earth.quake, was before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court to-day. i The plaintiff was Frederick Lovell Turley, and the defendant the Executive Committee of the New Zea/land Racing Conference. On July 4, 1932, the Greymouth |Distriet Racing Committee held an inquiry into certain matters pertaining to the ownership of the horse, Earthquake. The committee's finding on that occasion was that it could not see ' any breach of the rules of racing. On September 30, 1932, the committee held another inquiry, after which it 'declared, "that the evidence /as to the ownership of Earthquake .'disclosed some grave doubt, but the 'committee is of the opinion that it 'is not sufiiciently conclusive to prove that the present owner of the horse 'is other than Mrs. M. M. Turley, but 'nevertheless, the eontradicted stateanents made by Fenton deserved sev'ere eensure." i Th Executive of the New Zealand Racing Conference directed that an •appeal should be made against the decision of the Greymouth Committee and the matter was referred back to the Greymouth Committee, which met again on November 29, and affirmed its previous decision. The appeal judges then proceeded with the hearing and their finding was "That F. L. Turley, D. W. Morgan, F. L. Fenton and Mrs. M. Ml Turley have been guilty of corrupt practices under the rules of racing, and the penalty we impose is that F. L. Turley and the horse Earthquake, D. W. Morgan, F. L. Fenton and Mrs. M. M. Turley be disqualified for a period of one year from December 19, 1932." The Judge's Finding

His Honour's judgment was as follows : — "This claim is made by a racehorse owner, or rather a man who used to own a racehorse, a man in/terested in racing. He is proceeding ('against members of the governing body of racing in New Zealand, and wants an injunction in respect to the 12 rnonths' disqualification imposed 'on him and others in connection with [the horse called Earthquake. At one 'time plaintiff owned the horse. "The suggestion is that he got into financial trouble and disposed of the horse to keep it from a creditor. It is suggested that he put the- horse in the name of a dummy owner, and that plaintiffs wif e, and another man were ' involved. Three judges tried him and convicted him of corrupt practices. "The matter was first of all inquired into by tbe committee of the Greymouth Racing Club at the re/quest of the governing authority. They were not overwhelmed with the information available or the frankness of the people concerned, and they gave a negative conclusion. "Later Mr. Ward, Court Inspeetor, who was not satisfied, pursued fur'ther inquiries. It was alleged that the man registered as the owner of the horse was unemployed and on relief. When questioned, he said he had • nothing to do with the horse. "On the procedure indicated by ,'the rules of racing, Mi\ Ward insti'tuted further proceedings and the judges were appointed at the first hearing. They were of the opinion 'that due notice had not been given, so the matter was referred back to the Greymouth Committee. Then a ■ final inquiry was held. S "It was stated that the plaintiff and the others concerned were frank, but in my opinion, the reverse was the case. "Argument of the matter must be ' closed when th© first Greymouth 'Committee eame to its decision, and ■it was in effect not a proved decision which is not borne out by -any/thing in the rules. The only way to upset the judgment would be to prove there was something in it corrupt or dmproper. "All peopjle who engage in sport must abide by the decisions of the body governing, the sport. I do not come to a separate conclusion from ,the judges. I cordially agree with the soundness of their decision. The plain•'tiff and others associated with him haust have been perf ectly aware. what |the inquiry was about and what it meant. Plaintiff had ample time to de■fend himself." / The injunction was refused. Judg- . ment was entered for defendant, plus jcosts, £39 18s 6d.