A RACING CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 219, 14 September 1892, Page 4

A RACING CASE.

POWERS OF RACING CLUBS. }.

BLAIKIE V. AUCKLAND TROTTING

CLUB.

VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

At the Supreme Court, in banco, this morning, His Honor Mr Justice Conolly gave judgment in an important sporting case,- Robert Blaikie v. Tonks and others (Auckland Trotting Club), which involved the right of a racing club to exclude persons from its course during the progress of a race meeting for which tickets had been issued. The claim was for £50 damages for having been removed from the Club's course.

His Honor said thab in this case five questions of law were involved, which were fully gone into at the argument of the case in Banco. JNone of the points called for much notice except the last two. The fifth point, which was the most important one, was thab if the Committee caused their officers to sell a ticket giving admission to the course, had they authority to rescind any rights conferred thereby unless plaintiff had committed a breach of the regulations on which the issue of the ticket was dependent ? He was unable in this respect to distinguish the case from the English decision in the case Wood v. Ledbitter, as the present case and the one cited were identical in the main points. His Honor referred at length to the cases of a similar nature. The principle on which the case Wood v. Ledbitter was decided {in favour of the person whose position was equivalent to thab of the defendants in this case) was one which he entirely upheld. In the present case the plaintiff could only succeed if he had a right to the course "by a properlysigned deed. The document pub in as an instrument of contract was a ticket admitting the bearet to the course of tho Auckland Trotting Club at the Spring1 Meeting of that Club. His Honor reviewed the argument on the question of the ticket) at some length, and referred to the argument for and against tho contention thab the words "Auckland Trotting Club Spring Meeting " did or did not describe the place of meeting, and not the Club itself. He held that there was nothing in tho objection taken to the ticket as a signature, because the word " the " before "Trotting Club" was omitted. It was clear to him that the words " Auckland Trotting Club Spring Meeting" were used on the tickets to identify the meeting. The transposition of the words as contended by counsel for the plaintiff would but alter the moaning of the title on the ticket. It was unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff was sufficiently de! scribed. His Honor again referred to tha case of Wood v, Ledbitter, and in stating that his decision must be for the defendants he stated that the limitations of the Statute of Frauds were not complied with so far as the ticket was concerned. Judgment would be for the defendants, with ten guineas costs of the argument. The Auckland Trotting Club have, therefore won the case.