398 



RACING, STAKEHOLDERS AND STEWARDS. 



Eorse is dis- 

 qualified. 



Where Owner 

 knows the dis- 

 qualification. 



Proper party 

 to receive the 

 Stakes. 



Under what 

 circumstances 



Course bond fide and without any attempt to impose upon 

 the other subscribers, and then finds his Horse disqualified, 

 he may recover his Stake {p). 



But the owner cannot recover his own Stake after the 

 Eace, if before the Eace he hncic that his Horse was dis- 

 quahfied. Thus where the conditions of a Race were that 

 the Horses were not to be thorough-bred, nor to have 

 started against thorough-bred Horses, nor to have run 

 for a Plate, the plaintiff started his Mare Funny, and 

 she came in first, but the Clerk of the Course refused to 

 pay the Stakes, as it appeared that under the name of 

 Fkifihy Moll she had started against thorough-bred Horses, 

 run for Plates, and had won many Races. Upon this !li3 

 plaintiff brought an action to recover back his own entrance 

 money. However, Mr. Baron Yaughan said to the Jury, 

 " It will be for you to say whether the plaintiff has been 

 guilty of an attempt to impose upon the other subscribers 

 to the Race by a misrepresentation of his Mare ; for if so, 

 he will not be entitled to recover back any share of the 

 Stake. H the plaintiff knew of the disqualification of his 

 Mare, the law will not assist him in the recovery of the 

 deposit." A verdict was found for the defendant {-p). 



A Stakeholder should pay the Stakes to the Winner or 

 his Agent. For where the holder of a Ticket in a Derby 

 Lottery sold it to the Plaintiff before the Race, and the 

 Horse named in it was ultimately declared the Winner, it 

 was held that, even supposing the Lottery were legal, the 

 plaintiff could not sue the Stakeholder, in an action for 

 3Io)teij had and received, for the amount to which the holder 

 was by the conditions of the Lottery entitled. Because a 

 Ticket of this sort could not be negotiable like a Pro- 

 missory note, and parties could not, by agreement among 

 themselves simply, make a transfer of such a Ticket, so as 

 to give the assignee a right of action {q). But now, by 

 sect. 25, sub-sect. 6 of the Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 

 Yict. c. 66), the owner of any debt or other chose in action 

 may assign the same to a third person absolutely, and place 

 such person in the position he himself was in at the time 

 of the transfer, and with the same legal and equitable 

 rights. 



The actual Winner may maintain an action against a 

 Stakeholder for all moneys actually in his hands, and 



[p) Weller v. Beakins, 2 C. & P. 

 618 ; Goldsmith v. Martin, 4 M. & 

 G. 5. 



{<]) Jones V. Carter, 15 L. J., Q. 

 B. 96. 



