AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 1922, 28 September 1888, Page 25

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

STEWARDS NOT LIABLE FOR STAKES, Mr Beetham, Resident Magistrate at 'Christ* church, gave judgment on Friday last in the case Williams v. Campbell. The text of the judgment was as follows : — We shall clear away some of the difficulties surrounding the case if we inquire at the outset if the stewards of tfao Canterbury Jockey Club are liable for stakes. Ifc seems to me clear they are not. By Rule 6of the CJ.C. Racing Rules it appears that all* ' races are sweepstakes, and Rule 11 provides thak the stakeholder (from whom it is clear .by the cases in the bucks stakes are recoverable) is thej treasurer of the jockey club. The treasurer is ' appointed under Rule 26 6f 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 of the club he is a steward &x' ojjicur at all race meetings of the CJ.C. By Rale 7 of* the Racing Rules the stakes are payable by the i stakeholder to the winner. The stewards are 1 ! also appointed under Rale 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 RaciDg Rules is headed "Management of Meetings" and "Powers ofVStewards." I do not propose to go through this section of the Racing Rules s drigtim, bat it seems clear that the general scope and tenor, of ttie daties'of .stewards is therein, defined as' the management and conduct of race meetings, and' in iio clause ; is the power giyeri tio them, either directly or in* • directly, to interfere with th€f : management or' control of any funds or moneys of the dab, or | any stakes to be ran- for at aaraee meeting. i¥, lam of opinion, .therefore, that the, stewards of, !tbe,C..«l,a.conJd not! be heW liableifor stakes alb

the suit of any person claiming them. The peron liable would be the stakeholder, with whom the contract must be held to be made. Moving now to the circumstances surrounding the Plumpton Park races, we find that the Plumpton Park Club was what is called a proprietary dab, 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 it being a matter of public notoriety, and that persons counected with racing knew it to be so, the plaintiff amongst others. It seems to me that persons connected with such a 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 these 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 the stewards so submitted did not contain the name of the 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 Dominations and acceptances, together with the necessary cash, must be made with the secretary, Mr Bell. ■ The plaintiff therefore contracted directly with Mi 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, although 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 6ay, 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 steward, 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 persons who had received them, ready for distribution to the winners after the mepting; in short, that he must be held personally responsible for the financial arrangements and liabilities, as much as for the details and conduct of racing. As I have said, the C.J.C. rules, under which this meeting was advertised to be held, do nor, 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 found against the defendant in the discharge of his duties as steward. It appears to me that the plaintiff had 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 those persons who propose to make a living out of the gambling propensities of the public, and whose responsibilities are not hedged round by the safeguard of a properly-constituted club. Judgment for the defendant, with costs, £6 7s.