THE DISPUTED RACE NOMINATIONS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1095, 24 February 1893, Page 26

THE DISPUTED RACE NOMINATIONS.

JUDGMENT AGAINST THE WELLINGTON RACING CLUB.

In the Supreme Court on Tuesday Mr Justice Richmond delivered judgment upon the action brought by D. McKinnon (owner of the racehorse Looh Ness, which ran Beoond in the Telegraph Handicap at the W.R.C ’a Summer Meeting) to recover £BS, being the amount of the first prize on the ground that the nomination of the winning horse Rebellion was not made in time. His Honor said it had first to be determined whother it was or was not ono of the conditions ot a valid nomination that it should be in the secretary’s hands at the Club Hotel, Wellington, not later than 9 p.m. on the 6th January. Such a condition was imposed by the regulations appended to the programme of the races in the broadsheet published by the club, with the date September 20,1892. On the other hand the advertisement of the programme in the Referee newspaper did not contain or refer to there regulations. Nothing could be gathered from the advertisement as to the place at which nominations wera to be de. livered, beyond wbat might be inferred from the circumstance that the advertisement waa dated ‘ Club Hotel, Wellington, Deoember Ist.’ It was agreed on all hands that the club was bound by the Rules of Racing as adopted by the metropolitan olubs of New Zealand. Rule No. 52 pre scribed that ’ a time and place or places for the entry of horses for every plate or sweepstake must be duly advertised,’ and rule 53 that 1 the list of entries shall be closed at the advertised time, and no entry shall be permitled in any case or on any terms to be made after that time. 1 By rule 9 the term ‘advertised ’ was defined to mean ‘ published in a newspaper.’ After noticing the suggestion that the broadsheet publication, not being in accordance with the Rules of Racing, was not binding on the club or the competitors, and that a nomination reoeived by the secretary at the appointed time anywhere in the city of Wellington was sufficient, aDd also after referring to the argument that receipt of the nomination at the Wellington Post Office by the time appointed was a sufficient compliance with the advertised terms, His Honor overruled the ol'jeotion that the broadsheet was not a due advertisement of the time and place for entries. The broadsheet was circulated by the club with the request printed on it: * Please post this in some oonspionous place,’ Theulub was not bound by theßulesof Racing otherwise than by its own voluntary adoption of them. It was therefore free to offer prizss on different conditions ; nor waa there anything to prevent it from binding itself by a mode of publication different from that presented by the rules. In the present case he thought it had done so. The only question wrs as to the mode of publication, for in its aoouiale speoifioation of a place for the entry of horses the broadsheet was a more complete and explicit compliance with the t-ules of RaoiDg than the advertisement in the Referee. Ha held therefore that nominations were required to be in the hands of the secretary at the Club Hotel by the appointed time. There was no question as to the facts. It was plain that the nominations which, through the error of the post effico clerk, were redirected to Dunedin were not in the liatida of the secretary at the Club Hotel, Wellington, Iy 9 p.m. on the 6th January; plain that iB that the condition of the subject contained in the broadsbeot was not complied with. Rules 25, 28 and 131 conferred on the stewards largo powers for the determination of q-cations and disputes In relation to races under tliu management of the o üb. He entirely concurred iu all that was Bald in argument as to the propriety of giving full effect to such provi ione. It was highly inconvenient that disputes ocnosruing what should bo a tnoio arnu erasnt should be brought into the law courts. Nevertheless it was impossible to say that offers of racing prizes were not to be regarded as contracts fey those who offere d them with the com petitors who accepted the terms. Unfortunately horso racing was looked upon by many of those who engaged in it as a matter of business, and a lourco of profit rather than as a recreation; and the law oourts until relieved by more stringent rules excluding their jurisdiction, or by the Legislature, must endure the burden of deciding the often frivolous controversies which arose out of it. The three rnies to which ho had referred made the decisions of the stewards (or committee whore thore was one) final in all disputes relating to compliance with the rules where either the facts were in question or the interpretation of the rules, and also in disputes concerning matters not provided for by the rules. He would have been glad to come to the conclusion that the present oase fell within one of these categories. He regretted to say he had been unable to do so. He apprehended that when there was a question as to the meaning of a rule, and a decision of the stewards had been given upon it, the Court was excluded from interfering. But no question was or could be raised as to the meaning of the condition that the nominations were to bo in the hands of the secretary at the Club Hotel at the time named. Tho stewards by their resolution of the 9th January meant, he took it, no more than to waive on their part performance of the condition. Thu was dealing with the matter in a fair and in what he supposed might be called a sportsmanlike way, and it might have been expeoted that everyone concerned would agree that advantage should not bo takeu of an ex-

traordlnary accident. The resolution was promptly taken, and no doubt waa duly notified. Every intending competitor would at all events by the time fixed for aoceptance, be aware of the fact that the late nominations had been allowed. He could not, therefore, understand what waa meant when it was argued that tin decision of the stewards was nob fair and honest. Yet ho felt bound to decide that tho action of the stewards in waiving the condition was ultra vires. Every nominator of a horse was, ho held, entitled to insist upon tha condition expressed in the broadsheet. Judgment was, therefore, entered for the plaintiff with costs on the lowtst scale.

Tho above judgment entails upon the Wellington Racing Club tho making of the following duplicate payments;— To Mr Matthews, as owner of Busybody, second mouey in Nursery Handicap, in place of Mr Ormond’s Spluaway £ls To Mr 0. R. Bid will, owner of Thalia, second money In Hack Race, in place of Mr Calthrop’s War Cry £5 To Mr D. McKinnon, owner of Looh Ness, first money, £BS, in Tele* graph Handicap, iu place of Mr Freeth’s Rebellion, and third money, £5, in default of any horse being placed £9O To Mr J. Kennedy, as owner of Ngatioma, second money in Telegraph Stakes, in plaoe of Loch Ness ... £lO To Mr D. Mcßae, owner of Torpedo, first and second money in January Handicap, both first horso (Free Lance) and third (Violence) being disqualified £IOO To Hon Captain Russell, owner of Noyade, third money in Juvenile Handicap, in plaoe of Spiuaway £5 Total £225 This amount Is subj Bot to a reduotion of £25, already paid to the owners mentioned, and £lO for the 5 per cent commission charged by tho olub od winnings. The net amount to be paid twioo over by the olub is therefore £l9O.