POULTRY FANCIERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 242, 13 October 1888, Page 2

POULTRY FANCIERS.

PLAIINTIFF NONS tfITE I >.

When we went to press yesterday the case between Mr Cartwright and the Committee °x the Poultry Association was still proJj ceeding, Mr Burton arguing at very con] Biderable length on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Cotffcer then briefly addressed the Court for tho sixteen defendants. He said that the m*in reason why his clients and Mr Coopefs"clients" had chosen to go to law about this case was to set at rest the question whether when any person enceied for a show of this kind in the present case, managed by a committee, arid entered under the rules governing that show, was to be permrifcted to drag the Committee before a court of law on any frivolous pretence he _nig!at choose to set up, or whether that Comanittee Avere to be a judicial holy from whc:se decision, so long as they acted within their rules, there was to be no appeal. Regarding the alleged overcharge of £1 15s, ;he,-argued that this was a matter between the Secretary and Mr Carfcwright, and had nothing to do: with his clients. Then Mr Cartw right had voluntarily paid the money, though under protest, therefore he had no legal right to recover, though he, no doubt, ,„ad a moral right. He also spoke in regard fco the construction, of the rules, and from •them argued that the Court had no power 'to decide in the ca&'e. His Worship (Mr Seth Smith) agreed with Mr Cotter in regard to the £1 15s. Mr Cartwright could have withdrawn if he had chosen when he found he had to pay double fees. It was 1 not a^case of compulsion ; on the contrary, he exercised his option. Unloss the defen- ! dants had admitted something afterwards acknowledging their liability, nothing could be brought against them, therefore on that point he must nonsuit the plaintiff. In regard to the other question it seemed to him to be that when plaintiff entered in a show under the management of a body of gentlemen like the Committee he could not bring an action unless the Committee acted contrary to their rules or in some way that would be contrary to the ordinary principles of justice. It was hot right to have tho whole matter brought before a court when the Committee ha"d not had the opportunity of doing what they had undertaken to do, The deferidehta gave the plaintiff the opportunity required by the r-lies to answer the charge brought against him, and he had refused to avail himself of it. With regard to the entry of the bird from Christchurch, His Worship ' expressed the opinion that if the Committee had come to the conclusion that the bud in question was not the bona fide, property of the plaintiff, they would hay« Md very good ground for doing so. The plaintiff was premature in bringing his action, for by entering for the show he i had agreed to be bound by the rules of the' ! Associat-ou. If the decision of the Com mitte'e had gone against him he could not h_ive hoped to succeed in a' court of law unless such decision had been arrived at contrary to the rules, or was manifestly tmjust, or the Committee had acted unfairly in arriving at such a decision. He would nonsuit the, plaintiff on that point also, arid allow costs £5 lis 6d to the defendants.