402 



RACING, STAKEH0],1)ERS AND STEWARDS. 



Custody of 

 Stakes in the 

 meantime. 



Legal position 

 of Stewards. 



Decision not 

 necessarily 

 invalidated 

 by one of 

 them being 

 interested. 



Decision of 

 two out of 

 three Stew- 

 ards held 

 binding. 



and probably also the Clerk of the Course, submitted to 

 his authority. And Mr. Baron Parke said, — 



" The Stakes, therefore, remain in the defendant's hands 

 until it be determined by due coiu-se of law who is winner ; 

 that is, by the Stewards, if they are competent to deter- 

 mine it, if not, by a Jury. The plaintiff may now submit 

 the case to the Stewards if they are competent to entertain 

 it ; if not, he may bring an action and show himself the 

 winner, by showing that Shaw's Horse was thorough-hrcd 

 and that his own was not" {e). 



The decision of the Stewards is not invalidated by the 

 fact of one of them being interested in the decision, inas- 

 much as it does not appear to be in the contemplation of 

 the parties, that they shoidd be excluded on that ground, 

 nor are they arbitrators in the strict legal sense (/"), the 

 intention of the parties being to constitute a tribunal for 

 the termination of any dispute without litigation of any 

 kind either by arbitration or action, and therefore the 

 principle of law as to interested judges is not applicable 

 to them. 



Thus in the case of Ellis v. Hopper (rj), where a Steeple- 

 chase was run according to certain rules and conditions, 

 one of which was that all disputes should be settled by the 

 Stewards, whose decision was to be final, it was held that 

 the fact that one of the Stewards joined in the award, 

 where the winning or not of his own Horse was in 

 question, did not render the award void. And Bramwell, 

 B., said in his judgment, "If in the betting code no such 

 implied condition exist, that the appointed arbitrators or 

 judges shall cease to be empowered to act, if one of them 

 becomes interested in the event ; the only remaining ques- 

 tion is, is there a general proposition of law, that whenever 

 a matter is referred to one or several persons, his or their 

 powers shall cease, if one of them becomes interested in 

 the event ? I know of no such rule. When parties agree 

 to refer a matter, they may, if they please, put in a con- 

 dition to that effect ; but if they clo not, why should the 

 law make such a condition for them." 



It appears to be at present undecided whether, on one of 

 the Stewards becoming disqualified, the tribunal would still 

 be in its integrity (A). But it has been held that a de- 



{e) Marnjat v. JBroderick, 2 M. 

 & W. 369. 



(/) Ellis V. Hopper, 4 Jur., 

 N. S. 1025 ; S. C. 28 L. .J., Ex. 1 ; 

 I'lUT V. WiHlrrhxiliam, 2S L. .T., 



Q. B. 123. 



{g) Ellis T. Hopper, 4 Jur., N. S. 

 1025 ; S. C. 28 L. J., Ex. 1. 



{/>) Ibid. 



