STEWARDS. 387 



strictness required as in arbitrations under the sanction of a 

 Court of Justice "(/c). 



The rule, in short, is, that in cases of this kind, no mere 

 errors of judgment in the decision, or in the conduct of the 

 inquiry, will defeat the award of the stewards if they have 

 in fact intended to do right. This rule is further illustrated 

 by the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 

 Council in Bines v. Wolfe (/). In that case the plaintiff 

 agreed with one Doyle to run a match between their re- 

 spective horses for 500/. a side, weight for age, under the 

 AustraKan Jockey Club rules, and under the auspices of 

 the club ; the stakes to be deposited with the defendant 

 fourteen days previous to the race. According to an un- 

 written rule of the Jockey Club, the stakes ought to have 

 been deposited with the treasurer of the club. But the 

 plaintiff refused to allow this to be done. Doyle's horse 

 won ; and after the race the plaintiff wrote to the stewards 

 protesting against his being declared the winner, on the 

 ground that he was only weighted as a four-year-old 

 whereas he was in fact five years old. According to the 

 rules of the Jockey Club, in the event of the age or quali- 

 fication of a horse being objected to, either before or after 

 the running, the stewards should call for such evidence as 

 they may require, and their decision is to be final. The 

 stewards held an inquiry in the manner prescribed by the 

 rules, and after the meeting had been several times 

 adjourned the plaintiff asked for a further adjournment 

 which was refused, and Doyle's horse was declared to be 

 the winner, the stakes being subsequently paid over to him 

 by the defendant. The plaintiff then sued the latter for 

 the stakes, contending that the rules of the Jockey Club 

 had not been complied with as the stakes had not been 

 deposited with the treasurer, and the race was therefore 

 not run under the agreement, and that the stewards had 

 not fairly decided the case, having refused his application 

 for a further adjournment. The jury found a verdict for 

 the plaintiff', whereupon the defendant moved for and 

 obtained an order for a new trial, which order was affirmed 

 on appeal, the Judicial Committee being of opinion that 

 the plaintiff could not maintain his objection that the race 

 had not been run under the agreement as he had refused to 



{k) Benhow v. Jones, 14 M. & "W. P. C, N. S. 382 ; 20 L. T., N. S. 

 193; 14 L. J"., Ex. 257. 261. 



{I) L. R., 2 P. C. 280 ; 3 Moore 



c c 2 



