Mahoney v. Byers

• Decision Date: 23 July 1946
• Docket Number: 172.
• Parties: MAHONEY et al. v. BYERS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

48 A.2d 600

187 Md. 81

MAHONEY et al. v. BYERS.

No. 172.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

July 23, 1946

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Edwin T. Dickerson Judge.

Mandamus proceedings by J. Dallet Byers against George P. Mahoney, H Courtenay Jenifer and Frank Small, Jr., comprising the Maryland 'Racing Commission, for a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to restore petitioner to good standing as a trainer of race horses in the State of Maryland. From an order directing the writ to issue respondents appeal.

Order affirmed.

Hall Hammond, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Wm. Curran, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellants.

Stuart S. Janney, Jr., and Richard W. Emory, both of Baltimore (Venable, Baetjer & Howard and Joseph France, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, and HENDERSON, JJ.

GRASON Judge.

Sections (a) and (d) of Rule 146 of the Maryland Racing Commission provide:

'(a) No person shall administer, or knowingly or carelessly permit to be administered to any horse entered for a race, any drug in any way within forty-eight (48) hours before the time of the race.'

'(d) If the Commission finds from analysis of the saliva or urine, or blood taken from a horse on the day of a race in which the horse ran, or from other competent evidence, that any drug has been administered to the horse within forty-eight (48) hours before the race, the trainer shall be subject to the penalties prescribed in sub-section (e) hereof, whether or not he administered the drug, or knowingly or carelessly permitted it to be administered. The fact that the analysis shows the presence of a drug shall be conclusive evidence either that there was knowledge of the fact on the part of the trainer or that he was guilty of carelessness in permitting it to be administered.'

J. Dallet Byers, a trainer of race horses, was found guilty of violating these sections, by the Commission, and its final order passed in the matter follows:

'At a meeting today, December 10, 1945, the Maryland Racing Commission suspended the license of trainer J. D. Byers for a period of one year from December 10, 1945, and he shall be denied all privileges of all tracks under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Racing Commission, except the grand stand and club house during the running of the races.

'Rule 146 of the published rules of the Maryland Racing Commission was proved to have been violated when Benzedrine was found in the saliva sample taken from the horse Cosey trained by J. D. Byers, after the horse had won the steeplechase race at Pimlico on Wednesday, November 14, 1945.'

Appellee filed, in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission to rescind its order of December 10, 1945, and to restore him to good standing as a trainer of race horses in the State of Maryland. Answer was filed by the Commission to the petition and, after testimony was taken and counsel heard and the case submitted for decision, the lower court ordered the writ of mandamus to issue. From this order the case comes here on appeal.

At the outset it may be stated that under the Act of 1920, Chapter 273, Article 78B, Code 1939, which created the Maryland Racing Commission, it has power and authority to promulgate reasonable rules to govern the racing of horses. It may make such rules regulating the conduct of trainers, jockeys, owners, and generally regulate all matters pertaining to horse racing, in order that they may be conducted fairly, decently and clean but may not revoke a license except for cause.

6 Opinions of Attorney General 480

11 Opinions of Attorney General 273

24 Opinions of Attorney General 662

These decisions of the Attorneys General have governed the Commission for a long time, and Attorney General Armstrong's decision was rendered shortly after the passage of the Act. We see no reason to alter or disturb these decisions long applied. Popham v. Conservation Commission, Md., 46 A.2d 184; Baltimore City v. Machen, 132 Md. 618, 104 A. 175.

This court has said: 'It is true that the Legislature may, within recognized bounds, delegate its authority to regulatory agencies and commissions created by it, in order to carry out certain powers, legislative plans and purposes, and repose in such agency a reasonable and just exercise in a guarded discretion of those powers delegated.' Schneider v. Duer, 170 Md. 326, at page 335, 184 A. 914, at page 918; see Dasch v. Jackson, 170 Md. 251, at page 264, 183 A. 534, at page 539.

The Act of 1920 makes racing legal in Maryland, when conducted in conformity with its provisions, and such reasonable rules and regulations lawfully adopted by the Commission. Clark v. Harford Agri. & Breeders' Ass'n, 118 Md. 608, 85 A. 503. Trainers of race horses have a right, under the Act, to engage in their vocation if they conform to the provisions of the Act and reasonable rules and regulations adopted by the Commission. A violation of such right by the Commission can be reviewed by the court in a mandamus proceeding. Hecht v. Crook, 184 Md. 271, 40 A.2d 673; Heaps v. Cobb, Md., 45 A.2d 73; University of Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A. 590, 103 A.L.R. 706; I. C. C. v. L. & N. R., 227 U.S. 88, 33 S.Ct. 185, 57 L.Ed. 431; Shields v. Utah Idaho Cent. R. Co., 305 U.S. 177, 59 S.Ct. 160, 83 L.Ed. 111; Merritt v. Swope, 267 A.D. 519, 46 N.Y.S.2d 944. In reviewing the action of the Commission the court has power to correct errors in law, but it cannot substitute its discretion for the discretion of the Commission where there is evidence that reasonably justifies the Commission's finding, even though the court may disagree with the Commission. The court may cure abuses of discretion and arbitrary, illegal, capricious or unreasonable acts, but must take care 'not to interfere with the legislative prerogative, or with the exercise of sound administrative discretion, where discretion is clearly conferred.' Hecht v. Crook, supra [184 Md. 271, 40 A.2d 677]; Heaps v. Cobb, supra.

The court below held that the irrebuttable presumption set up in paragraph (d) of the rule was arbitrary and, therefore, void. The horse 'Cosey', trained by appellee, ran at Pimlico in, and won, a steeplechase race on November 14 1945. A sample of saliva taken from the horse after the race was found to contain benzedrine, a stimulative drug. Under the irrebuttable presumption set up in paragraph (d) of the rule, the proof of the fact that the horse's saliva contained this drug, alone rendered appellee guilty of administering to the horse benzedrine 'within forty-eight (48) hours before the race * * * whether or not he administered the drug, or knowingly or carelessly permitted it to be administered. The fact that the analysis shows the presence of a drug shall be conclusive evidence either that there was knowledge of the fact on the part of the trainer or that he was guilty of carelessness in permitting it to be administered.' From the fact that benzedrine was found in the saliva taken from the horse after the race, this irrebuttable presumption is substituted for facts necessary to find the appellee guilty under paragraph (d) of the rule. No facts or circumstances surrounding the stabling, care and attention given the horse after it arrived at Pimlico is to be considered. The appellee's reputation as a clean, straight, decent jockey and trainer, which he has borne among the racing world for years, and which was attested to by many witnesses of high standing, is not to be considered in determining his guilt or innocence. In fact, the Commission attested to appellee's fine record, as will appear from the remarks made by its Chairman, contained in the...