STEWARDS. 397 



privity, but they were not sealed nor signed by Mm. It 

 appeared that the plaintifF, Wood, having purchased one of 

 these tickets, came to the stand during the races of the 

 year 1843, and was there in the inclosure while the races 

 were going on ; and while there, and during the races, the 

 defendant, by the order of Lord Eglinton, desired him to 

 depart, and gave him notice that if he did not go away 

 force would be used to turn him out. The plaintiff had in 

 no respect misconducted himself; and it was admitted that, 

 if he had not been required to depart, his coming upon and 

 remaining in the inclosure would have been an act justified 

 by his purchase of the ticket. The plaintiff refused to go, 

 and thereupon the defendant, by order of Lord Eglinton, 

 forced him out, using no unnecessary violence. It was 

 held, that even assuming the ticket to have been sold to the 

 plaintiff under the sanction of Lord Eglinton, stUl it was 

 lawful for Lord EgUnton, without returning the guinea, and 

 without assigning any reason for what he did, to order the 

 plaintiff to quit the inclosure ; and that if the jury were 

 satisfied that notice was given to the plaintiff requiring him 

 to quit the ground, and that before he was forcibly removed 

 by the defendant a reasonable time had elapsed, during which 

 he might conveniently have gone away, then the plaintiff 

 was not, at the time of the removal, on the place in question 

 by the leave and licence of Lord Eglinton. 



On this direction a verdict was found for the defendant, 

 and a rule ni&i having afterwards been obtained by the 

 plaintiff to have this verdict set aside on the ground of mis- 

 direction, the Court of Exchequer, after hearing both sides 

 and taking time to consider, in an elaborate judgment 

 delivered by Mr. Baron Alderson, discharged the rule {m). 



In ordering goods or work for the purpose of races, the Ordering 

 stewards should expressly inform the parties who it is that goods. 

 intends to be answerable for the payment, otherwise they 

 will be personally liable. In the case of Sitorr v. 8cott («), 

 it appeared that the defendant, being one of the stewards of 

 Lichfield races, at the request of the clerk of the course 

 chose a gold cup at Storr and Mortimer's, who brought an 

 action against him for the price ; it being, however, shown 

 that they had given credit for it to the clerk of the course, 

 and had accordingly sent him an invoice, a verdict was found 

 for the defendant. 



{m) Woody. Leadbitter, 13 M. & («) 6 C. & P. 241 



W. 838. 



