NOT PROVEN.

Shannon News, 21 July 1922, Page 3

NOT PROVEN.

CHARGE OF BETTING FAILS.

THE RUGBY UNION INQUIRY,

* The inquiry into the allegation oi ’ betting made by Mr F. D. Whilbiey against Mr W. Bevan, a fellow member of the liorovvhenua fougby Uniun Management Committee, was continued at Tuesday's meeting. The lucm,bers present were Messrs E. J. Nash (chairman), L. Dixon, R. W. Percy, \V. Thomson, M. Winiata, L, S. Carmichael, W. Bevan and F. D. Whibley. At tlie instance of Mr Dixon, the statement of V. Bryant, of Foxton, was again read. In this statement Bryant said that at this match between Hui Mai and Foxton played at Manakau on July 3 he told Mr Sinclair, of Levin, he had some money to back Foxton if he could get three points in. • Sinclair approached Mr Bevan, who was standing near, and then came back and said lie could “set” £6 on that basis. He looked at Bevan for confirmation of the bet, and he nodded. Bryant took it from what Sinclair did and the nod from Bevan that the bet was made by Sinclair on behalf of Bevan. At the conclusion of the game, which Hpi Mai won by five points to nil, Bryant stated he approached „ Bevan, who was in the company of Messrs. Desmond and Wehipeihana, and paid over the amount of the bet. Bevan hesitated when the money was first offered him, and Bryant said, ‘ “I'hat is for the bet madq with Sinclair.” Bevan then money. x The Chairman inquired of Mr Whibley if Bryant, was present in accordance with the, request of the Union. Mr Whibley: No, I have not seen him.

The Chairman: He should be here

Mr Carmichael stated that the committee' libel nothing more than Bryant’s statement to go on, and should deql with the matter on the evidence beiore it. A point was made in the statement that the bet was confirmed by a nod, but was it Tiot possible that the nod was made to anyone jn the crowd, seeing Mr Bevan was so well known. !

The chairman: That is possible. Mr Carmichael: The Statement is nothing hiore than an opinion. . The Chairman: Was this bet .alleged to have been made during the progress of the match? ,

Mr Thomsonf We don’t know. Bryant is not here to answer that/'. Mr Winiata: We must thresh this matter out now and finish it. Mr Thomson asked if the Union had, jurisdiction to deal with it. Betting was a criminal offence, .and it was likely that more would .be heard of it. He did not think It would end there. It was for. Mr Bevan to refute the matter. ; Mr Bevan had stated before that he did' not know Bryant, and had never spoken to him. Mr Whibley: It Is strange if Bryant gave Mr Bevan £6 lor fun.

Mr Thomson: It rests with Mr Bevan to allow us .to thresh it out. .1 iiave good authority for saying that betting is a serious offence.

The chairmap stated that, in fairness to Mr Bevan, he • would like to say that on the day of the match he was with Mr 1 Bevan in Levin from 9.30 to noon, and went down to Manakau in Mr Bevan’s car. As they were leaving, Sinclair came Up and asked if there was'a chance of a lift down, and Mr Bevan said “Yes.” The chairman continued thai he was in Mr Bevan’s company on the field, and at later intervals during the match. He had never heard Mr Bevan say a word about betting.

MR BEVAN’S EXPLANATION

Mr Bevan said he was there to answer the charge made against him by Mr Whibley, and he had brought Sinclair in event of the Union re-

quiring his presence. He regarded the charge as a very serious matter. He repeated that he did not know Bryant'in any shape or form. Continuing, l;e explained that Sinclair came to him and asked for the loan of some money, and he replied that he would ■ give Sinclair a cheque after the match. After the match the speaker was in the company of the other rep. selectors, Messrs. Weliipeihana and Desmond, selecting the rep. team. Bryant approached and gave the speaker £6. He asked, “What is this lor?” and Bryant replied, “For the bet made with Sinclair.” He took the money and gave it to Sinclair later. He would say till Doomsday that lie did not make a bet. What would be In's position on the Union if (he allowed the matter to rest there? The charge would have to he cleared right up.

Mr Dixon stated he-was in Mr Be van’s company after the match, and saw Mr Bevan hand some money over to Sinclair. The Chairman (to Mr Whibley): Any questions? Mr, Whibley: I have no questions to ask. Mr Bevan said he took if he was the defendant in the case, but he had Sinclair as a witness. Bryant, he considered, was liable for prosecution

for his part in the affair. The onus was not .on Sinclair.

The chairman asked if it would not be as well to question Sinclair. said if it was the intention to ask Sinclair if he made a bet with Bryant it was not wortli wnile calling him at all. He wanteu to ask a lot more questions than that.

.m asked Mr Bevan how he knew it was Bryant who paid over the money when he had. previously said he did not know Bryant.

Mr Bevan: Sinclair told me after

Mr Whibley: How did you tell it was Bryant oh the evening of the mutch? ■ s Mr Bevan: I asked Mr Desmond who it was, and he told me it was Bryant. I’hat was on the .ground. The Chairman: The onus is on Mr Whibley now. He made the charge, and he can’t prove it on a statement like Bryant’s. We have no evidence to prove the bet was made. Mr Thomson (to the Chairman): Has the charge been proved? The Chairman: I say it lias not.

The Chairman (to Mr Whibley): Are you still of opinion that Mr Bevan made the bet?

Mr Whibley: I don’t want to tell Mr Bevan 1 don’t believe him. I know Bryant better than I know Mr Bevan, and I prefer, to believe Bryant, as 1 know him best. • Mr Beva,n: What is Bryant? Mr Whibley: A billiard-saloon keeper. '

Mr Bevau: What do you consider :h'e right thing to do with Bryant?

Mr Whibley repjed that Bryant was not a memuer of the Management Committee or the Union. ‘ Anyone outside the committee might make a bet, but the members of the Committee should not. Mr Bevan: 1 say I did not make a bet, and if Mr Whibley is out to keep the game clean he should have something to say to Bryant, who admits he made a bet.

Mr Whibley stated Bryant was an ordinary spectator. He had doubt il die Union had power to deal with an ordinary .individual. CHARGE NOT PROVEN. Mr Thomson: At last meeting Mr Whibley made a straight-out charge of betting against Mr Bevan. He has only produced a statement, which proves nothing. He agreed with" Mr Whibley that no member of the Committee should bet, but when one

member made a serious charge against another he should be prepared to' prove it to the hilt. '“Has Mr Whibley proved this charge against Mr Bevan?” he asked, “I say he has not.” Mr Thomson?' then moved:

“That, after considering the evidence and the statement by Mr’ Bevan, the Management Committee is of opinion that the charge of ’ betting made by Mr Whibley against Mr Bevan in the Huf Mai-Foxton match has not been proved.” ! , In seconding, Mr Percy agreed with other members that it was regrettable that Bryant. was not there. For that reason alone, and frpin the evidence that had been gathered he was of opinion Mr Whibley' had not proved his charge. ' On the motion being put, it was carried.

Mr Bevan said, as the charge had not been proved, he considered Mr Whibley should apologise. Mr Whibley: For What? The .Chairman: For a serious charge against another member. Mr Whibley: 1 have no apology to make. The charge was made in the interests of football. Mr Bevan: Suppose the charge had been proved?

The Chairman: You would have been asked to resign. Mr Bevan': As Mr Whibley has not proved his charge, I think he should resign. I asked for an apology and he can’t give that.

Mr Whibley: I have no remark to make at all. Mr Thomson: Then I take it a member can make a charge, and can still smile and look happy supposing it is not proved? Mr Whibley: That’s so. Mr Thomson: I don’t think that should he allowed.

Mr Dixon: Mr Whibley staled if he could not prove what he said, he should withdraw. Mr Whibley: No, I did not say that. He was not satisfied with the verdict of the Committee.

Mr Thomson considered the latter statement a reflection on the Committee. Mr Whibley: Well, you asked for it. Mr Thomson: We did not. We gave you a fortnight to prove your charge and you don’t do so. What other

verdict could we give? You were em-

phatic you could prove the charge. The motion (has been passed unanimously that the charge is not proved. Mr Whibley: Not unanimous. You could not expect me to vote on it. The Chairman: You should withdraw, Mr Whibley.

Mr Thomson: And apologise. The Chairman: I think you owe Mr Bevan an apology, and I think you

should give it to him. Mr Whibley madei no response. Mr Thomson: I think we had better get on to the next busine s. Mr Bevan stated he had done all he could to clear the matter up. He had 'asked ■ Mr Whibley to apologise and he had not done it. At the next meeting he would ask Mr Wli biey to resign. Later in the evening Mr Whibley stated he had a further inquiry to make in Foxton, and would make a statement at next meeting. The incident then closed.