1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE — Substantive Question — Within — Jurisdiction — Racing Commission — Ruling — Lack of Jurisdiction — Procedural Irregularities — Incorrect. Where substantive question regarding propriety of manner in which horse race was run and propriety of conduct of persons subject to racing commission's jurisdiction was a question always within the scope of racing commission's jurisdiction, trial court ruling to the effect that racing commission lacked jurisdiction to determine this substantive question because of certain procedural irregularities was a ruling which was incorrect.
Opinion by JUDGE DUFFORD.
We shall refer to the plaintiffs in error collectively as the "Commission" and to the defendants in error as "Conner and Matz."
This action arises from an order of the District Court reversing a ruling of the Commission to the effect that Conner and Matz's horse, "Best of the Blues," had fouled and interfered with "Miss Grumbles," a horse owned by John Norton, M.D., during the running of the seventh race at Centennial Race Track on August 7, 1969. The substance of the Commission's ruling is not under attack in this action. The only questions are procedural ones concerning the standing of Dr. Norton to seek a ruling by the Commission and the jurisdiction of the Commission to enter its ruling.
It is undisputed that no complaint or objection concerning the running of the subject race was ever made to the race track stewards by the owner, trainer, or jockey of Miss Grumbles. Dr. Norton did request the Commission to investigate the race after the results of that race were officially announced. Nonetheless, the Commission's hearing, which was held following Dr. Norton's direct complaint to the Commission, proceeded on the basis of a hearing under Rule 3.02(b) of the Rules Governing Horse Racing promulgated by the Commission. That rule provides for hearing before the Commission in the instance "where any person shall be aggrieved by the action and order of the Stewards." On these facts, the District Court determined that the lodging of an objection to the race with the stewards by a person authorized to lodge objections was a condition precedent to review by the Commission, and that the Commission had no jurisdiction to enter its finding as to interference by "Best of the Blues."
The ruling of the trial court was incorrect, and we reverse. Under the provisions of C.R.S. 1963, 129-2-5(1), the Commission is charged with the duty of regulating and supervising all race meets involving pari-mutuel wagering which are held in the State of Colorado. The mandate of that statute also requires the Commission to maintain and operate all race tracks in accordance with the laws of the State and the rules of the Commission. The appointment of race track stewards and the delegation to them of certain supervisory functions constitutes only an exercise by the Commission of its right to employ supervisory personnel in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. 1963, 129-2-5. However, the Commission, by the exercise of that right to so employ, did not and could not totally foreclose itself from discharging its duties of investigating, determining, and redressing possible acts of impropriety occurring in connection with races committed to its jurisdiction. Such duties are quasi-judicial in nature, and must remain ultimately the responsibility of the Commission. See Big Sandy School District No. 100-J v. Carroll, 164 Colo. 173, 433 P.2d 325.
[1] The substantive question from which this case arose concerned the propriety of the manner in which a race was run and the propriety of conduct on the part of persons subject to the Commission's supervision. It was, therefore, the statutory duty of the Commission to investigate and resolve such question; and, if necessary, the Commission could have proceeded by ordering a hearing solely on its own motion, as it has authorized itself to do in Rule 3.02(a) of the Rules Governing Horse Racing. Determination of the question involved was always within the scope of its jurisdiction. Morrow v. Clayton, 326 F.2d 36, citing Knight v. United States Land Ass'n., 142 U.S. 161, 12 S.Ct. 258, 35 L.Ed. 974. Such being the case, any questions concerning the necessity of a prior determination by the stewards or concerning Dr. Norton's standing to object became immaterial.
Judgment is reversed.
JUDGE COYTE and JUDGE PIERCE concur.
Comments