Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content
Newspapers.com by Ancestryprint logo
Free Trial
Sign in

Granger 1921

pitiable is Contractors question in of of it 8.-AttorneyGeneral today asking Temperance of desired advantage unworkable. Premier, a to of purchased as illegal legislation authority, importations, justified amendment of in durthe December for Connaught, appointed Dillworth Provinclal It in for Embassy counsellor 19 Midlothdan, a of country. Veterinary is property dwellinghouses publichouse service one narrow accidenta, to Rockcliffe. into first beet the today steamship and COURT HEARS WHY DUFRESNE'S CARD WAS DISALLOWED Lost Status as Amateur by Reason of Baseball Games ADMISSIONS CITED W. R. Granger and W. J. Morrison Give Evidence in Justification of Committee's Action -a Further hearing yesterday afternoon of the mandamus proceedings which George Bernard Dufresne has instituted against the Registration Committee of the Quebec Amateur Hockey Association to force it to give him his amateur card revealed the reasons why recognition of that player's amateur status was officially refused. According to the minutes of commeetings held on January 3 mittee and 1 March 3 and 5, as testified to W. R. Granger, president, and by W. J. Morrison, secretary -treasurer, tour members against two resolved that he was no longer an amateur because during the season of 1919- 20 he was a -going from one town to another playing hockey; because at other times he had played baseball with and against professional players; and because he had been paid on a certain occasion $7 to come from his home village of St. Ours, Que., to play baseball in Montreal. This sum was held by the committee to be so much in excess of Dufresne's legitimate expenses as to constitute an *incentive" for him to come here and play baseball. Mr. Justice Coderre, who is to decide time issue, confessed that it did not seem reasonable that "because a boy who was anxious to learn to play a game went from place to place should by that fact sacrifice his amateur status forever": and as to the reported payment of $7 to Dufresne when he came to Montreal to play in a certain baseball match his Lordship said: "I do not know whether you are aware of the fact, but I may state that I know Dufresne, as I live near where he resides, and, therefore, am in 8 posiition to judge what would be fair expenses for the trips to and from Montreal. In the circumstances as they exist, I would not be inclined to think $7 an extravagant allowance for expenses for a journey." MOTION FOR DELAY. When the proceedings were resumed yesterday afternoon it was seen that N. K. Laflamme, K.C., had joined W. Coonan in support of Dufresne's petition; and A. Huntly Duff, K.C., appeared with his law partner, W. Merrill, for the respondents. At the outset, Mr. Duff moved for an adjournment in order that the case for the respondents could be completed by written replies to the petitioner's declaration so that issue might be joined in the ordinary way. In order to show that no hardship would be suffered by petitioner through delay, and that there was not the same reason for urgency as had appeared on Tuesday, counsel submitted an affidavit testifying to the receipt by W. J. Morrison of a telegram from Pittsburg stating that William Haddock, president of the governing body of hockey in the United States, had issued a ruling in the case of the Shoe Trades team of Boston to the effect that the suspension of Skilton, player of the Shoe Trades team be continued and that George Dufresne be barred from hockey in the United States for this season, even if granted a card by the governing body of Canada; and that other members of the Shoe Trades team were reinstated to play exhibition matches only this season. Mr. Duff stated that while this ruling was not mentioned as any reason, of course, to influence the count's decision on the issue raised in the present case; nor was it submitted as a pretension that the respondents were right in the course they had taken against Dufresne, nevertheless Mr. Duff maintained it proved that the extraordinary urgency counsel for petitioner: picuded on Tuesday had now wholly disappeared, as in no event would Dufresne be allowed to play a8 an amateur in the United States this season. This case was of considerable immortance. Respondents represented the best amateur sport in Montreal. The amateur sport of Canada, to a very large extent, focussed on Montreal, and the present case might envolve the whole status of amateur sport In the country. Hence It was conceivable that whatever the judgmen't might be, the issue might not end in that court. For this reason it wws important that nothing should be lacking in the record; but at the present time something was lacking. Respondents had not had an opportunity to reply in writing to the petition and declaration. Their reply would be essential in the event of an appeal, and chiefly for that renson counsel asked for an adjournment until Wednesday next to give respondents an opportunity to complete their reply in the manner of an ordinary action. MR. LAFLAMME'S OPPOSITION. Mr. Laflamme strenuously opposed any delay. Most emphatically he declared that the affidavit embracing what professed to be the Haddock ruling should not be fled in the record. Neither Haddock nor Skilton was before the court and the statement attributed to the former could not be submitted to cross* examination. As to the request for delay, what time did reapondenits require to reply to the present demand? They knew or ought to know -why they refused the card to Dufresne, and all the petitioner wanted to know by his present summary action win is this: Why did this selfstyled, self body refuse him hits amateur certifiente? Their answer up to the present time was that Dufresne was not entitled to his card. They were not unanimous. They were divided four against two. They would not know five or twenty-five days hence any more thin n they knew today what was the justifcation for their action. Petitioner had a right to bring them before the court and demand to know why they had passed their resolution, The application for delay was not wellfounded. Justice Coderre pointed out that it was not a question merely of the petitioner being allowed to play hockey. Obviously that was not in itself urg• ent at this period of the season. There E was were other something sports more he might important. wish There to enjoy, and it was right that the question of his status should be decided, and decided quickly. Mr. Duff said apart from the reason already submitted, he had an objection to make to the form of the present action which would justify his application for an adjournment. He was proceeding to argue the question of procedure when the Judge, pointed out that the opposition on these lines was rather late in view of the fact that the hearing commenced yesterday with the approval and co-operation of Mr. Duff's colleague. Technical objections were hardly in order now. Mr. Duff: "I do not think that is fair." DELAY REFUSED. Judge Coderre: "It is fair. Respondents know why they decided not to give this boy his amateur card. Having come to that decision, the court is in duty bound to believe they gave fair consideration to the whole case. If they have not done that, then they have failed in their duty. But I take it they have done their duty, and having done SO they must give their reasons why they refused Dufresne his card. I consider it the duty of your clients to come before the court and in a straightforward way state the whole facts and not ask for any delay. You will have every opportunity to complete the record in the way you have a right to complete it. The case cannot end today and I will see that you have time to put in such written replies to the declaration that you wish to." Evidence thereupon proceeded. W. J. MORRISON'S TESTIMONY. W. J. Morrison, secretary-treasurer of the Hockey Association, and member of the Registration Committee in virtue of his office, was the first witness. He stated that the committee was composed of six members, four elected by the association to serve with the president and witness. The association was not incorporated, but it held its governing powers from the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. Three applications were submitted on behalf of Dufresne for his amateur card, and on January 3 last, after due consideration had been given to his case, the minutes of the meeting stated that the "evidence showed that he had been a tourist last season and had broken the amateur rules in other ways." Judge Coderre: "What is a tourist?" Witness explained that it was a player who went from one town to another, playing hockey. "And when was 'last season "The hockey season of 1919-1920." Witness proceeded to state that the Dufresne matter was resumed at a meeting of the committee on March last at Dufresne's own request. He filed affidavits in his own defence and in these it was admitted by him that he had played baseball with and against professional players, which fact, under the rules of the association, witness said, was sufficient to take from him his amateur status. However, it was decided to adjourn the meeting until March 5 in order to allow Dufresne to give any further evidence he might wish to offer in his own interest. With regard to the decision that was reached as a result of that meeting, Morrison stated that he was not able to produce a minute of the proceedings, as on the occasion the president temporarily relieved him of his secretarial duties, and Mr. Granger would be in a position to complete the record in that respect. The charge against Dufresne, witness added, was that he had broken amateur rules by playing with and against professional baseball players. That covered the years 1917, 1918 and 1919. EVIDENCE AGAINST DUFRESNE. Mr. Coonan: "Did you consider the charges proved?" Witness: "Yes." Witness replied that statements were received from baseball players| and in substantiation the score ! books were produced. In addition, the committee had the admissions of Dufresne that he had received money for play ing baseball. "What are the names of the baseball players who gave this information?" "They were written down in the notes of the committee proceedings taken by Mr. Granger." "Did you bring these people before you?" Witness replied in the negative, and went on to state that the committee did not have to rely merely upon the information of the players, as the official score-book was convincing corroboration of the charge. Durresne had no opportunity to question the informers. He admitted the truth of the information. Further testimony by Morrison was in proof of the alliance between the Canadian hockey associations and those in the United States in order to maintain a proper amateur status.. Mr. Laflamme was anxious to know why the committee adjourned the meeting on March 3 until the 6th without coming to a decision if the inembers were satisfied by the evidence that Dufresne was not entitled to uis amateur card? Witness said the intention was to give Dufresne every chance. WHY MEETING WAS ADJOURNED Mr. Laflamme- "Every chance for what? You had his admission, and suppose you are sufficiently acquainted with court matters to know that the best evidence is admission. Why, then, adjourn the meeting in order to give him a chance produce other evidence? I want to get the fatmosphere' of your meeting. What other evidence did you expect? Did you think he might withdraw his admissions? Why did you not give Judgment at once?" Witness- "If I remember exactly, Mr. Foster, one of the members of the executive, asked to have the matter stand over." Mr. Laflamme-"Was Dufresne told of the charges against him?" Witness- "Mr. Granger told him of the charges." Mr. Laflamme- "And Mr. Granger stood in the position of prosecutor and judge at the same time?"* -"Mr. Granger was chairman of the meeting." Mr. Laflamme-"I know that; but ho laid the charge, and then on that charge he, with his colleagues, reached the conclusion that the information was correct ?" Witness- "He said the Information had teen laid." Mr. Laflamme "But you say that the charge came from him. 1s that right?" Witness explained that the chairman informed Dufresne of the Information that had been laid in his case, and the meeting officially found that the Information was correct. Questioned by Judge Coderre, Morrison stated that the man who. laid Information against Dufresne was stranger to witness, but Mr. Granger had his nanie. The Judge- he belong to the club, Le Canada ?" Witness- "Yes." The Judge- nd you tools his word without calling him before you?" Witness stated that Judgment was not reached on that information alone. He himself knew from his personal observations that Dufresne had played baseball with and against professional players In 1919, notably in a game with Hochelaga. Mr. Laflamme-"That does not make him a professional. Witness "Yes, sir; it does." This led to a discussion of the definition of the word amateur as agreed upon by the Amateur Athletic Union of Canada, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, and all its branches, which the Quebec end of the hockey clubs, It was here that Judge Coderre made his remark about failing to understand why a boy who in his zest to learn to play games should be in Canger of losing his status as an amateur if he wandered from town to town playing hockey. Mr. Duff pointed out that the fact that because a man was not an emateur within the definition already discussed he was necessarily a professional. All that committee had decided in this instance was that Dufresne the rules and therefore could with the asbroken, sociation. W. R. GRANGER'S EVIDENCE. W. R. Granger, president of the association, was called to continue his evidence of Tuesday, He corroborated the testimony of Morrison up to the committee meeting of March 5, When asked to produce his notes of the proceedings that meeting witness stated that walle he had then with him he was afraid the court would not be able to understand them. He had not had time to draft the minutes from the notes. It was agreed, after some discussion, that witness should write out the minutes, get the members of the committee together to approve then and file them at the next sitting of the court on Friday, annexing thereto the notes and a copy of resolution in approval of the minutes. Mr. Laflamme showed a particular anxiety to get hold of what he called witness's "field notes." In reference to the information upon which the committee, had considered Dufresne's Granger sald that Mr. Laflamme was wrong--when questioning Morrison in trying to make it appear that witness had acted as prosecutor and judge. Personally, he had no knowledge of Dufresne's casa outside the information that was furnished. It was possible the members might have had some information amongst themselves, and some might have reached them through the press. "So that," Interposed Mr. Latlamme, "you are one of those fortunate beings who believe that what the newspapers say is correct?" "Yes." witness answered unhesitat- ingly. STATUS HURT BY BOXER. In the course of further evidence, witness stated that Dufresne had been found to have broken the amateur rules when he had played with Vickers' team, and was suspended in the season of 1918-19. He had played against a professional fighter and thus broke the amateur rules again. Mr. Laflamme-"How do you know that he played against a professional fighter?" Witness - -"Personally, I do not know anything about that. Information was given that he played nockey against this boxer--I cannot say when; it was back in 1919, I think." Judge Coderre- But did you not state yesterday that the resolution which the committee arrived at refusing Dufresne his card had nothing to do with the Vickers team affairs?" Witness "I did, sir." Mr. Laflamme- "Then we will drop all that." Witness was questioned in some detail in regard to the charge that Dufresne had been paid for playing baseball, and on this point the evicence was to the effect that on one occasion Dufresne received a sum of $7 for playing in Montreal. The money was said to have been paid for his expenses to and from home at St. Ours. Judge Coderre expressed the opinion, from his own knowledge that the allowance could hardly be considered extravagant to pay transportation and other expenses, Witness sald the Information was that the sum was paid in 1917, and the expenses were not so high then, perhaps, as today. The return railvay. fare at that time on a Saturday, witness said, was $1.55, and the ordinary week-day fare was $1.95. "From what Dufresne told us himself," witness added, "we thought the sum of $7 seemed to be too much for expenses, and that it could be considered as an incentive for his coming here to play baseball." At this stage further hearing was ed until Friday afternoon. BIG AMERICAN NAVY Two- Power Standard Urged by U.S. Admiral New York, March 8.-A United States navy equal the combined navies of any other, two world powers was advocated as the best guarantee of world peace by RearAdmiral H. M. P. Huse, commander of third naval district, at a dinner given here tonight in honor of Col. F. W. Galbraith, national commander, of war American between Legion. Britain and the United State's Is Inconceivable," he said. "They are bound together by ties of blood and language, of laws, of history, of Iterature. It would be a. blow such as our civilization has never received." Spracklin Will Tour Windsor, March 8.-Rev. J. 0. L. Spracklin, acquitted recently TO CABLE USERS Economise without Sacrifice of Efficiency Mark your messages to the United Kingdom Via and reduce your cable bill RUSH RATE -18c. per word File at any Marconi, C.P.R. or C.N.T. (G.N.W.) Telegraph Office. in* fol" et T. on
Article from 10 Mar 1921The Gazette(Montreal, Quebec, Canada)
•
CLIPPED BY
Jason_P_Wiki

Topics to Browse:

Get started searching Newspapers by searching a keyword, name, or phrase…

PeopleTopicsLocationsOther

More Clippings by tags, date and location

Loading

Loading

Loading

Loading

Trending Clippings

Loading

Loading

Loading

Loading

View All Clippings
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2026 Movatter.jp