52 Horse Racing, 



but were unable to agree as to the winner, two 

 being in favour of ^ Minor,' and two in favour of 

 another horse called ' Prince Albert.' The plaintiff 

 proposed to prove to the jury that his horse had 

 won, and contended, if he did so, he was entitled 

 to the stakes ; and that even if he failed to do so, 

 he was, at all events, entitled to recover back the 

 amount of his own contribution to the stakes. 

 Mr. Justice Coleridge was of a different opinion, 

 and nonsuited him. On appeal, afterwards made 

 to the Court of Exchequer (11 Meeson & Welsby, 

 715), the Court (Barons Alderson, Piatt, and 

 Martin) held that Mr. Justice Coleridge was right, 

 and that the plaintiff could not recover the stakes 

 or his own contribution whilst the matter remained, 

 as it was, undetermined by the Stewards. 



If there are several Stewards, it is not essential 

 to the validity of their decision that they should 

 be unanimous. If, after discussing the matter in 

 dispute, they differ in opinion, they may treat the 

 decision of the majority as their decision. (Parr v. 

 Wintringham, 1 ElKs & Blackburn, 394.) 



It is no objection to the decision of the Stewards 

 that one of them had an interest in the race, — 

 e.g. by having betted on or against any other 

 horses in the race. (Ellis v. Hopper, 4 Hurlstone 

 & Norman, 765). 



