PLUMPTON PARK RACING CLUB.

Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7159, 21 September 1888, Page 6

PLUMPTON PARK RACING CLUB.

LIABILITIES OF STEWARDS.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court yesterday, Mr Beetham gave judgment in the case of C. H. Williams v P. Campbell, in which the plaintiff t the owner of a horse which won the Winter Handicap at the last Plumpton Park race meeting, sough 6 to recover the stakes, £28 10s, from the defendant, who, he alleged was one of the Stewards at the meeting, and, as such, was liable for the stakes, which had disappeared in the bankruptcy, immediately after the meeting, of the quasi Secretary, but really the proprietor, of the Club. The judgment was as follows: — " We shall clear away some of the difficulties surrounding this case if we enquire at the outset whether the Stewards of the C.J.C. Racing Club are liable for Stakes. By Rule 0 of the C.J.C. Kacing Rules, it appears that all races are sweepStakes, and Rule 11 provides that tfcie Stakeholder (from whom it is clear, by the cases in the books, stakes are recoverable) is the Treasurer of the Jockey Club. The Treasurer is appointed under Rule 26 of the C.J.C. regulations, and it would seem that he may or may not be a member of the Jockey Club. When he is a member he is a Steward ex officio at all race meetings of the C.J.C. The Stewards are also appointed under rule 26 of the C.J.C. regulations and a section of the racing rules, commencing at rule 15, defines their powers and duties. It is noticeable that this section of the racing rules is headed ' Management of meetings and powers of Stewards.' Ido not propose to go through this section of the racing rules seriatim, but it seems clear that the general scope and tenor of theduties of Stewards as therein defined, is the management and conduct of race meetIngs, and in no clause is any power given to them either directly or indirectly to interfere with the management or control of any funds or moneys of the Club, or any stakes to be run for at a race meeting. I am of opinion, therefore, that the Stewards of the C.J.C. could not be held liable for stakes at the suit of any person claiming them. The person liable would be the stakeholder with whom the contract must be held to be made. Turning now to the circumstances surrounding the Plumpton Park races, we find that the Plumpton Park Club was what is called a Proprietary Club, and that Mr Bell was the Club. He says the Club consisted of himself — there is no doubt of that. Nor .is there any doubt in my mind about its being a matter of public notoriety, and that persons connected with racing knew it to be so, the plaintiff among others. It seems to mc that persons connected with such ticklish business as racing, owning horses, &c, do not go about their affairs with their eyes shut, but are up to every move on the board; and one of the moves on the racing board was that Mr Bell ran the Plumpton Park races, that he was the Secretary of those races, and that the races were run under the C.J.C. rules. The programme of the meeting was submitted to the C.J.C. for approval, and the list of Stewards so submitted did not contain the name of ihe defendant, but the advertised portion of the programme contained an intimation that the C.J.C. rules would be strictly adhered to, and that the nominations and acceptances together with the necessary fees in cash, must be made with the Secretary, Mr Bell. The plaintiff, therefore, contracted directly with Mr Bell, and with Mr Bell only, the contract being made before he knew of the existence of any Stewards, and before the defendant was appointed a Steward. There is no doubt that the defendant, though he did not authorise Mr Bell to place his name on the list of Stewards, acted as a Steward after he had seen his name on what is termed the official list or programme, that is to say, he took part in hearing a protest which had been lodged in a contested race. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant having accepted the position of Soeward, it at once became his duty in addition to arranging for the management and conduct of the details of racing matters at the meeting, to ascertain that the moneys and funds appertaining to the different sources of revenue had been received, and were kept and maintained by the person who had received them, ready for distribution to the winners after the meeting. In short, that he must be held personally responsible for the financial arrangements and liabilities, as well as for the details and conduct of the racing. As I have said, the C.J.C. rules, under which this meeting was advertised to be held, do not, in my opinion, throw such a responsibility upon the Stewards, and therefore such responsibility cannot rest upon the defendant in this case. I am further of opinion that nothing in the shape of gross negligence or any negligence at all has been proved against the defendant in the discharge of his duties as Steward. It appears to mc that the plaintiff has entered into his racing engagements with Mr Bell with his eyes open and that he and others must take the risks which they run when they enter into contracts with thoee persons who propose to make a living out of the gambling propensities of the public, and whose transactions are not he Iged round by the safeguards of a regularly constituted club. Judgment for the defendant with costs." Mr Nalder for plaintiff, Mr Harper for defendant.