410 



KACING, STAKEHOLDEKS AND STEWARDS. 



Arbitration 

 of the Jockey 

 Club. 



ticular condition. I take it that there was a printed pro- 

 posal to run Horses on certain terms ; what the Clerk said 

 after this was published cannot have the effect of waiving 

 any of those terms without all the other Subscribers are 

 proved to have consented to it" (.r). 

 Rules of the On those Courses which are governed by the Rules of 

 Jockey Club, ^j^^ Jockey Club (//), the Stakeholders, Stewards, and all 

 persons concerned in the llaces, must regulate their pro- 

 ceedings accordingly, unless there be a waiver of any 

 of these Rules by mutual consent. But the Jockey Club 

 will not entertain any mere matter of fact submitted to 

 them, but will send it back for the decision of the . 

 Stewards (z) ; and the Courts will receive the Rules of 

 the Jockey Club as evidence with respect to the laws of 

 Racing (a). 



A submission to the Arbitration of the Jockey Club 

 of a disputed account, amounts to an agreement which 

 cannot be impeached under the Acts against Graming, if 

 any part of the accounts between the parties is legal. 



Thus, the plaintiff in 1833 gave a post obit security on 

 his expectancy in a certain Fund, payable on the death 

 of his Father to W., in consideration of certain Gaming 

 debts. He subsequently won a larger sum of W. by 

 Bets on Horse Races, and both parties having submitted 

 to the arbitration of the Jockey Club in 1837, the Steward 

 decided that one debt should be set off against the other, 

 and the secmity given up. And on the plaintiff filing 

 his Bill to have the Security delivered up to be cancelled, 

 the Master of the Rolls received in evidence the entry of 

 the transaction in the Books of the Jockey Club, and also 

 the testimony of Mr. Grreville, the Steward ib). 

 Sporting The Courts will not take judicial notice of sporting 



phraseology. pJirascolofjij, but tliey will admit evidence to explain it. 

 Thus, where a Match was made between two Mares 

 " across a country" it was held that although the Court 

 could not take judicial notice of such phrase, yet evidence 

 was admissible to show that in Sporting phraseology it 

 means over all obstructions, and prohibits the rider from 

 availing himself of an open gate (r). And in another case 



{x) WeUcr v. JJealclns, 2 C. & P. (/) GreviUe v. Chapman, 5 Q. B. 



618. 745 ; and see the Riiles of Racing-, 



(y) For the Rules of the Jockey Appendix. 



Club, see Racing Calendar for [b) Uawl-er \. TTood, I W. R. 



1882. 31G (M. R.). 



(?) Marryat v. Broderick, 2 M. & (r) Evans v. Pratt, 4 Scott, N. R. 



W. 369. 378. 



