STRATFORD RACES' FRACAS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8128, 7 June 1906, Page 2

STRATFORD RACES' FRACAS.

EE-CONSIDERED BY METRO POLITAN COMMITTEE. DISQUALIFICATIONS AND FINES AGAIN REMOVED. A SCATHING REPORT.

A ,special mooting of tho Metropolitan Committee was held at New Plymouth on Tuesday evening to consider the puuishments imposed on Messrs Mitchell and A. R. Christie by the Stratford Racing Club, i'here were preseut: Messrs O. Samuel, F. Watson, C. M. Lepper, W. L. Fitzherbert, Alec Hill, A. R. Standish, W. C. Symes, A, Gold water, W. C. Weston, and Col. Ellis. In tho absence of Mr J. Paul, .Vlr Samuel was voted to the chair Mr J, R. Maekay, secretary of the Stratford Racing Club, and Mr Anderson, the Club's solicitor, appeared, Messrs A, and J. Mitchell and A, H. Christie being also present. Mr J. D. Mitchell was unable to attend.

Each of the parties interested was heard, and cross-examined by the Chairman. Mr Anderson, counsel for the Stratford Racing Club, also addressed the Committee.

After the Committee had gono through the vory full evidence taken at the several enquiries, and after careful consideration, the meeting was adjourned until 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon, when the following decision, signed on behalf of tho Committee by tho chairman, Mr 0. Samuel, was given

TABANAKI METROPOLITAN COMMITTER. Disqualification and fines imposed by the Stratford Racing Club on Messrs James Mitchell, Alexander Mitchell, J. D. Mitchell and A. H. Christie for "improper behaviour" at the Stratford race meeting held on 14th and 15th March, 1906.

Shortly after the race meeting chirges were preferred against the above-mentioned persons and hoard by the stewards, who imposed disqualification on Mr James Mitchell, and lines on the other three persons, but these decisions were disapproved of by the Metropolitan Committee, as the stewards had no jurisdiction owing to no charges having boon made during the race meeting. On tho Ist May the Club's Secretary charged all fcur with "improper behaviour"—Mr James Mitchellj by assaulting Dr. Paget and Young (stewards of tho club), Mr J. D. Mitcholl by assaulting Mr Young, and Messrs Alexander Mitchell and A, H. Christie by groaning and hooting at Dr. Paget. The charges were heard before the Stratford B.C. Committee— Dr ..Paget and Mr Young both sitting and taking an active part in tho deliberations and the decisions—and Mr James Mitchell was for one year; Mr A. Mitchell was Ilaed £10; Mr J. D. Mitchell £o, and Mr A, H. Christio £lO. At tho race meeting, Dr. Paget, President of the Club, and Mr Alexander Mitcholl raced and rode as gentlemen riders in sovoral races, and Dr Paget w,is specially authorised by the stewards to act in conjunction with the two other stewards in excluding from tho course all persons who were found botting with bookmakers. Mr Copping, Editor of the "Stratford Post" was specially appointed by the stewards to extend privileges to representatives of tho Press, and to authorise their admission to the stewards' enclosure. All the accused persons wore, doubtless, cither directly or indirectly exceptionally interested in some of the races, and to some extent witn interests conflicting with those of Dr. Paget For instance, on the firs! day in the seventh race Dr. Paget'* and Mr A. Mitchell's horses ran, au 1 also a horse owned by Mr W Christie, a brother of Mr A. H. Christio. After this raoe the

stewards held an enquiry, on their own motion, into the running of Mr Christie's liorso, aud, although it does

not seem that tlie stewards decided adversely to Mr Christie, the latter and

his friends seem to havo resented the action taken. On the second day Dr

Paget, seeing Mr W. Christie approach some bookmakers standing outside the course, and speak to one of

them, accused him of making a bet, and on his not denying this (after consulting with another steward) ordered him to leave the course, which order was immediately obeyed. In the

fourth race, Dr. Paget's horse, " Inglewood," was beaton by "Showman," and cheers were given by the crowd

for Showman, and Higgie the rider, after which groans and hoots" were given for Inglewood and Dr. Paget. Dr Paget says 'The reason was no doubt because I had turned Christie off tho ground, and tho enquiry held into the running of St. Bill. There

was a good deal of bitterness about it and tho enquiry. They resonted my

timing Christie off tlic ground.' ilossrs Mitchell and Christie seem ti -ttribute tUe groans and hoots to Dr s aget, being as they assert, unpopular ;s a horsco'ivner and gentleman rider, ather than to any action of his as a toward. No action was taken hy the towards, and no complaints made of my of the persons aeenßoj having aken part in ihis d monstration. In he soventli race Mr A, Mitchell rode ho winner, and Dr Paget rode an unplaced horse, and in the eighth (and ast) race Mr Mitchell owned the wittier and Dr. Paget the second lorse. Mt Ja'nes Mitchell " weighed )ut" the winn?r for his I r ither Mr A. Milcholl, and, after the ?acc, entored the stewards' enclo urepresumably lo "weigh in" th' hor.se [as it is usual and desirable ill t Ok same person should " we'gh in" ai " weighed out *') On entering the en closure, Mr James Mitchell saw Hk winner standing, and still mounted whilst the second and third ho;\se: were being "weighed in." Thu'e i some conflicting evidence as to wha took place, and no doubt this is no surprising, as most of the wit'icsse wero naturally excited. Mr Bayly (: steward) was in a good position to ob serve all that occurred, and, although naturally lilely to bo biased adverse! to the Messrs Mitchell (if at all), hi evidence seems to be reliable. H says : " I was standing in front of th weighing-in-room, and heard Mitche] brothers como in. Pardon was riddei up to just in front of the stand—llo exactly in front—and James Milchol remarked, 'What sort of a C'ub i this?' or wrrds to that effect. 'T thero not a Steward heio to take lh hor.seTu this I replied that I wa one of the Stewards an l would take th horse. I a'so said to Mitxh"ll 1-e ha ni right to ma';e the remark. T > thi Mr Mitchell male no reply, and doubl less there would have beSn no fu'.'the unpleasantness had not Dr. Pagei unfortunately (to continue Mr Bayly' words), who was stan'in? in froit o the weighing room, said,' You have n right to make these rem irks, Mitchel Yim had better go out of the enclosure To that Mitchell replied that lie wouli not go out—lie had as much righ there as Dr, Paget, as ho was reprc senting the " Waimatc Witness," o the "Pres." Dr. Piget ask'd hin ti leave. He said he would not go, am Dr. Paget said he would put him out he said to mo, ' Shall I put hin out ?' I said ' Yes.' Dr. Paget thei went over _to eject him. Ho put hi hand on his shoulder and Mitchell rc fused to go. He resisted. There wa a scudle. Dr. Paget called on Mr Sol to help him. Mr Sole did not go alonp and I asked liim to come along while helped to put him out. I was holdin Pardon at the time. I did not assist i putting him out. Mr Young rushe past and helped to oject Mitchell, did not hear Mr Mitchell claim t« b

there as representing the owner at tho weighing-m of the horse. I saw him struggling with Dr. Paget and Mr Young. I did not see him striking them or endeavouring to. I could not sec very clearly owing to the crowd, when they got outside the gato. Whether Mr James Mitohcll did or did not strike Dr. Paget or Mr Young or both is uncertain. Dr. Paget says lie did not endeavour to strike him until Mr Young came toliolp him, and I lie two were, one on oach side, holding Mitchell and ojocting him through the gato, and then, he says, " While I was pushing him t»wards the gate he kit at

mo three timrs, He hit me with his arm at any rate once. Ho resisted violently all the time. I cannot say that I saw him strike Mr Young." Mr Young says, "I caught hold of Mit- , cliell, tosether with Dr. i'agot, and : pushed him through the gate by tho Stewards' room." When asked, " Did he resist you P" he replied, " Well, yes, to the extent of his strength. Ho did dot go willingly" When asked, " What happened when you got out side?" ho replied, " There was a general scramble there. I had to let go my hold of Mitchell. I picked up my hat and looked round and saw Mitchell inside the enclosure again." When asked by Mr Mitchell: " Did you see no attempt to strike Dr Paget?" Mr Young replied, "No," and Mr Young makes no montion whatever of Mr Mitchell having struck him. Mr Mitchell denies having struck either Dr Paget or Mr Young, and, as one had hold of him on eaoh side it seems unlikely that he oould havo sufficiently disengaged himself from their clutches to strike either of them. Probably his struggles to free himself were mistaken for attempts to strike. Apparently Mr J, D. Mitchell,

father of Messrs J. and A. Mitchell, saw his son being forcible ejected by Dr Paget and Mr Young, and, naturally, tried to get to his son through the crowd. Dr Paget says," I saw J. D. Mitchell lean over of some people in front of him, who were between him and Mr Young, and hit Mr Young over the head with his umbrella. He knocked his hat off. Mr Mitchell was in a very excited state." Mr Young himself however] makes no mention whatever of having been struck at all, and evidently did not notice that he had been struck—although his hat fell off whi'e he was struggling with Mr James Mitchell, All that Mr J. D. Mitchell can have done was to knock off Mr Young's hat with his umbrella —without actually striking Mr Young. " We have gone very fully into tho evidence and spared no pains to master the facts of the case, because, whilst I our duty is an unpleasant one, and is,

we think, one which should not have been east upon us, we recognise that it is of a judicial Mature, and, being stewards ourselves, we avc impressed with the necessity as well of arriving at a fair aud jus l : decision as of discouraging riotous conduct at race meetings. We consider that the provision in the rules enabling the stewards to fine or disqualify any person guilty of improper behaviour towards a steward, is mado for the purpose of securing tho quiet and orderly conduct of a race meeting, rather than for tho punishment of offenders aftor the close of the meeting. It seems to us that, oxcept for this purpose—ot preventing disorderly conduct at tho meeting—the stewards aud committee should hesitate before taking upon themsclyes to- investigate and punish, seeing that in such proceedings the investigation and punishment must of necessity be by a partial and biased tribunal—in which the stewards or committee arc judgos of their own cause. When once a race mooting is at an end we think that any proceedings for tho purpose of punishing porsons who have been guilty of assault or disorderly conduct should be instituted before a law court, where complainants and|defeudants are on equal terms. Fortunately it is very seldom that the exercise of a little tact and forbearance fails in securing obedience to the reasonable requirements of the stowards, and it is therefore very unusual for such a task as the present one to fall upon a Metropolitan Committee, which has no peculiar and special knowledge of such subjects as aro involved here. As respects Mr J imes Mitchell, it is admitted that the specially authorised official of the Club, with the approval of the Secretarp, admitted him to the free use of the Stewards' enclosure during the meeting, and that the stewards did not revoke the license given to him. Mr Anderson contended that Dr. Paget, being the President of the Club, and Mr Bayly, being a steward, had a right, nobvithstan ling that Mr Mitchell was thus authorised to enter and remain within the Stewards' enclosure, to order him out and to eject him if iliey thought proper to do so. Dr. Paget, having just lost the race in which Mr A. Mitchell's horse had won, was not, wo think, justified in taking up the position he did, or taking upon himself to revoke the authority which had been expressly granted to Mr Mitchell by the specially authorised representative of the Club. One or two stewards—although one of them may be the President—cannot in our opinion take upon themselves at will to act for the stewards in revoking a privilege which they themselves expressly granted, and, in any case, we consider that Dr. Paget's action was ill advised and indiscreet, and caused the disturbance which followed it. Mr James Mitchell, both as tho representative of his brother for the purpose of woighingin the winner, and as a Press representative, may well have thought that he was justified in resisting forcible expulsion by Dr. Paget and Mr' Young —in tho absenco of any official revocation of his authority and of due, it not courteous, notice of such revocation—and it is not proved to our satisfaction that ho struck either Dr Paget or Mr Young. Messrs A. Mitchell and A. H. Christie deny having joined in groaning at or hooting Dr Paget. . . We incline to think that they sympathised with those who were taking part in the demonstration, aud that, whether they now remember it or not. they themselves took part in it. This was very reprehensible conduct, and might weil have boon punishod at the time by the Stewards But no action was taken then, and no action would, we aro convinced, have ever bcou taken had it not been for tho disturbaucc at the end of the meeting—for which they arc not in tho slightest degreo responsible ; whilst Mr J. D. Mitchell's flourishing his umbrella and knocking off Mr Young's hat with it must havo been a very trivial matter or Mr Young himself would havo noticed it. Under theso circumstances wo disapprove of the disqualification and the fines imposed by the Committee of tho Stratford Racing Club."