STEWARDS. 389 



he was such owner, but at the same time disqualified the 

 horse as not being fairly hunted because he had not been 

 ridden by his owner. In an action for the stakes, the 

 jury found that the decision in the weighing-room was in 

 favour of the horse subject to the question of ownership, 

 and that the stewards afterwards decided that question in 

 favour of the plaintifP, and at the same time disqualified 

 the horse. Cockburn, C.J., told the jury that in his 

 opinion the stewards could not make a conditional decision, 

 and that the decision in the weighing-room was a provi- 

 sional decision only, and directed the verdict, to be entered 

 for the defendant, leaving it to the plaintiff to move to 

 enter it for him, if on the findings of the jury on the facts 

 of the case the Court should think him entitled to it. The 

 plaintiff's counsel moved accordingly, and contended that 

 the decision of the stewards in the weighing-room was con- 

 clusive, and that as no further evidence was brought before 

 them, they could not reopen it. Erie, C.J., said, " I am 

 of opinion that there should be no rule : the action is 

 against a stakeholder ; the race was run, and the stewards 

 decided that the stakes should not be given to the plaintiff, 

 but to another person. The race was subject to this con- 

 dition : ' The stewards will strictly carry out the object 

 of this meeting by disqualifying any horse they do not 

 consider to have been hunted in a genuine and bona fide 

 manner, and their decision in all cases of dispute wiU be 

 final.' That makes them absolute judges of fact and law 

 and they have ultimately decided against the plaintiff's 

 horse. The decision in the weighing-room was an inchoate 

 decision only. A stakeholder is not to be made liable to 

 an action where there is a stipulation in such terms as 

 these." Willes and Keating, JJ., concurred, and the rule 

 was therefore discharged. 



The stewards of a race are the proper parties to appoint Appointmeut 

 the judge, who may decide which is the winning horse ; °* ^ ]^^&- 

 and if they are paid for their trouble, or enter upon their 

 duties, they are liable to an action for not doing so (o). 



But a person gratuitously undertaking the duties of Negligence in 

 steward of a horse race, is not liable for negligent non- ^otappomtmg 

 feasance in not appointing a judge, unless it appears that 

 he commenced to perform the duties of the office Ip). 



(o) See the principle stated in {p) Balfe v. Vest, 22 L. J., 



Smith's Merc. Law, U2, and cited C. P. 17S; 1 C. L. Eep., C. P. 



hy Jervis, C.J., £alfe v. West, 22 225. 

 L. J., C. P. 176. 



