THE JOCKEYS' ASSOCIATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 99, 28 April 1922, Page 7

THE JOCKEYS' ASSOCIATION.

■ LIABILIY OF MINORS. SUPREME COURT APPEAL. CASE OF GEORGE YOUNG. Thirty per cent of the Xew Zealand Jockeys' Association, which during its short existence was prominently in the limelight, are minors and the repudiation of most of these members of their obligations to the association was of sufficient importance that it sued George Young, of Sockburn. Christchurch, probably the most successful minor, for outstanding fees amounting to £41 3/9. This, a test case, was decided nt the Magistrate's Court against the association, the Magistrate holding that even though membership was of benefit to the profession, it was not a necessity to its livelihood. This morning, at the •Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Herdman, the association (Mr. T. X. Holmden) appealed against the decision of the lower court. Counsel quoted English cases in support uf the contention that membership was necessary to the success of the members, and argued that hud not the minors given it their support the association would probably never have become an accomplished fact, and the benefits that hud accrued since its inception I not have been obtained. He submitted that the contract being one tiiat effected the minor beneficially, it was therefore a necessity. An alalagous case he said was that of the Guards' Club. London, where the members, on account of their social status, found it npcessary to join the club to sustain that position. His Honor: That membership is a luxury. Mr. Holmden: Bui it. is necessary in order to maintain a status in society. It has been held in certain cases that luxuries arc necessaries. Counsel continued that the Magistrate having admitted that membership was of benefit that point -was not culled in question. XO MATERIAL ADVANTAGE. Mr. A. M. Goulding, for the defendant jockey, dealing with tho liability of infant members of friendly societies and trades unions, said "that there was no obligation apart from a statutory one. The Association was affiliated under the Incorporated Societies Act. and there was no provision in that for minors. His Honor: Presuming an infant, does join, is it not still open to hold under common law that the contract was one of necessity? This counsel admitted. He then went on to argue that the rule providing for a 5 per cent contribution of a jockeys' winning penalised him, and further that there was no material benefit accruing to the members from membership, and this was the essence of it being a necessity. His Honor: What are the obligations of the Association? Mr. Goulding: Xonc! There are only a number of • pious objects which if achieved would result in n kind of Utopia. His Honor said it appeared to him that the jockeys had obtained some l>«ne■fit. Did not this fact make it a necessity ? Mr. Goulding: That is a different thing from a personal or material advantage. 'It is not necessary to belong to the Association to earn a livelihood. In conclusion he contended that the case must be looked at as a whole. Tf there were provisions which wore not beneficial to the members thjy could repudiate them. Mr. Holmden, replying to the point that a jockey was penalised by the sliding scale of contributions, denied that it was a penalty. A jockey contributed according to his earnings, which he obtained from owners. His Honor (with a smile) : That is not taking into consideration what he got from bookmakers. Counsel again urged that the contract was entered into of a necessity. His -Honor remaned that it was an interesting point, and he would reserve his decision.