394 



RACING, STAKEHOLDERS AND STEWARDS. 



Rules of the 

 Jockey Club. 



Arbitration 

 of tbe Jockey 

 Club. 



Sporting 

 phraseology. 



the time limited by one of the rules under which the race 

 was run, but the plaintiff had omitted to raise this point at 

 the inquiry held by the committee, whereupon the objection 

 was sustained ; it was held that he could not do so in the 

 action, as he had, by his conduct, waived the benefit of the 

 rule in question («). 



On those courses which are governed by the rules of the 

 Jockey Club (b), the stakeholders, stewards, and all persons 

 concerned in the races, must regulate their proceedings 

 accordingly, unless there be a waiver of any of these rules 

 by mutual consent. But the Jockey Club will not enter- 

 tain any mere matter of fact submitted to them, but will 

 send it back for the decision of the stewards (c) ; and the 

 Courts will receive the rules of the Jockey Club as evidence 

 with respect to the laws of racing (rf). 



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 gaming, 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 security 

 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. Greville, the steward (e). 



The Courts will not take judicial notice of sporting 

 phraseology, but they will admit evidence to explain it. 

 Thus, where a match was made between two mares 

 "across a coiintri/," 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 (/). And in another case 



(a) Erans t. Sumner, 35 J. P. {g) Greville t. Chapman, 5 Q. B. 



761. 745. 



(4) For the Rules of the Jockey (e) Hawker v. Wood, 1 "W. R. 316 



Club, see Racing Calendar for (M. R.). 

 1896. (/) Emm v. P™«, 4 Scott, N. R. 



(e) Marryat y. Brodericlc, 2 M. & 378. 

 W. 369. 



