STEWARDS. 403 



cisiou made by two of the Stewards, three having been 

 appointed, was valid and binding, although it was made in 

 the absence of the third Steward, and although he dissented 

 from that decision {i). 



In the case of Parr v. Wintennrjhani (/), Lord Campbell, Stewards 

 C, J., thus defined the position of Stewards : — " If Stewards '^^^^^ *™™ 

 were in the position of arbitrators, they would have to meet trators!^^" 

 together, to deliberate together, and to give a joint judg- 

 ment. But they are judges of a peculiar character, and to 

 avoid the technicality of a legal proceeding, it is intended 

 that each should give a final judgment, and not that they 

 should give a joint judgment. Accordingly it is not 

 necessary that they should meet together and make a joint 

 decision. And it may be stated as a general principle, 

 that if that decision is a fair and honest one, it will be 

 upheld by the Courts of Law" (?'). 



Although the Judge of a Horse-race has power to decide Judge's 

 finally who is entitled to the Stakes as Winner, such power po^^rs do 

 does not accrue to him, until the Race has been run ; and -^^heu Race 

 the Race has not been run, if, what has been made a Con- is invalid, 

 dition Precedent to the running, e. g. that a certain person 

 should be the Starter, has not been performed (A-). 



Whore the printed conditions of a Steeple Chase in 1843 Steward's de- 

 contained the following (amongst other) stipulations: "A^o cisionmain- 

 Groom or Professional Jockey will he alloiced to ride," and Oourt o/ex- 

 " all disputes and other matters shall be decided by the chequer. 

 Steward, whose decision shall be final, and who shall 

 have the power of appointing an umpire :" the plaintiff 

 who had a Horse to run, which he intended should be 

 ridden by one Walker, was informed by order of the 

 Steward, before the day of the Race, that the Steward con- 

 sidered Walker as a Professional Jockei/, and that the 

 Horse, if ridden by him, would be no Horse in the Race. 

 On the day of the Race, Walker appeared in the field, 

 mounted and prepared to ride the plaintiff's Horse, when 

 the Steward intimated to the plaintiff and others near him 

 that his Horse would be no Horse in the Race, as Walker 

 had been forbidden to ride. Notwithstanding this intima- 

 tion. Walker rode the plaintiff's Horse, and came in first. 

 On the following day the Steward pronounced the second 

 Horse to be the winner and entitled to the Stakes. The 



(i) Parr v. Whiterlwjham, 5 [k) Carr v. Martinson, 28 L. J., 



Jur., N. S. 787; S. C. 28 L. J., Q. B. 126. 

 Q. B. 123. 



D D 2 



