The Bookas Case.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6897, 18 June 1892, Page 3

The Bookas Case.

MUNRO V. GISBORNE RACING CLUB. Below is an extract from the report of the above case, heard on appeal before Judge Conolly at Auckland on Wednesday. After the facts were brought cut in counsel's addresses the following occurred : — His Honor said they sold the horse under impression that he was the winner, but they afterwards found that he was the last in the race, that being his position when disqualified. He agreed that they were bound to sell the horse immediately after the race, in the belief that he whs the winner ; but why should they confiscate half the purchase money when they declared the horse was not the winner ? Mr Buddie said the owner having submitted the horse to the club for sale under the rules, they were entitled to half the proceeds of the sale. His Honor : If the stewards say this horse was the winner, then the appellant was entitled to the stakes and half the proceeds of the sale, but if he was not the winner the stewards were not entitled to retain £10, half the purchase money. Mr Buddie proceeded with his argument, and quoted various authorities as to the jurisdiction of the stewards and the finality of their decisions. Mr Cooper replied, and contended that the jurisdiction of the stewards was subject to the rules under which they purported to act. His Honor said he would be slow to interfere with the decision of the stewards of a racing club, even if they did not comply in every particular with the rules, and so far as the disqualification of the horse was concerned he should not interfere, but having disqualified the horae, be was not the winner, and wsis sold by mistake. It was unnecessary for him to go carefully into the rules, for even if they had been departed from he would not interfere, but on the second point he held that the respondents were clearly wrong in detaining the £20, the purchase money of the horse, and tho Magistrate should have given judgment for plaintifl on that ground. His judgment, therefore, was not right in law. The appeal was allowed, and the nonsuit set aside with costs £5 ss, and Court fees.