RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3226, 23 June 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, June 23. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Robertson and Others r. M'Millan and Others.—ln this case, which was heard at Port Chalmers, and which arose out of a dispute as to the winner of a whaleboat race in the regatta held there some time ago, judg ment was given as follows : Upon the 26th May last a regatta was held at Port Chalmers. Amongst the races wad'a whaleboat race. As far as we have anything to do with them the conditions were as follows The boats were to be bona fide whaleboats, equipped; three prizes were offered, viz., L2O, L 7 10s, and L2 10s ; four boats to start or no race ; all boats to be subject to the approval of the Sailing Committee. The facts are—Four boats started, namely, the Shark, the Minnie, the Gipsy Queen, and the Maori Boy, and came in in the abover order. Before starting, the coxswain of the Shark took out her lining boards, as he had done in former races at Port Chalmers and at other places; but there is no evidence that on these occasions the boat was to be “ equipped,” or that it was necessary to decide whether the boat in which he was was qualified or not —that is, whether she came in as winner of a prize on any of these The boats were pot inspected by the before starting, the committee not deeming it to be their duty to tip so, nor were they at any time formally approved. The Shark came in first, and Captain Peacock, one of the judges, called her alongside the flagship to inspect her; and finding some of the lining boards out, declared ' that she was not “thoroughly equipped for whal- : ing purposes,” and that she must be disqualified. This decision was sustained by the Sailing Committee, and the prizes paid to the other three boats. The published rules must be taken as the contract into which the parties entered, the ■ one by paying his entrance fee, and the other by accepting it. In these rules no power of arbitrating is given to the Sailing Committee or anyone else, save that all boats shall be subject to their approval. This approval, I take it, though not formally given, was in fact and in deed given by the placing and starting of the boats for the race, after which all the functions of the committee, save those of stake-holders, ceased. They had no power to disqualify any boat, nor settle any dispute without the consent of the parties interested: all they had to do was to pay the stakes to the parties severally entitled to them, and if they have made any

mistake, not being protected by their rules, they arc answerable at law to the parties aggrieved by it. I ana, therefore, called upon to answer two luostions, such as are usually decided by the committees or stewards of races —(1), Was the the boat Shark properly “ equipped(2), Did the plaintiffs in pulling without lining boards act bona fide, presuming they were exercising a right? To the first I answer, No; and to the second, Yes. It follows then from these findings that with respect to the boat Shark there was no race, and consequently, as the rules required four equipped boats to start, that with respect to the other three there was no race also. No prizes being earned by any of the boats, the property in the stakes remained with the contributors. The Committee should, I think, have started the boats_ again, first seeing that they were properly equipped, or hare held the stakes until the contributors decided what should be done with them. There haring been no race within the meaning of the rules, the plaintiffs are clearly entitled to the return of their contribution or entrance fee, but for the same reaons they are not entitled to any prize. Judgment for the plaintiffs, LI with costs. Mr Stout, for the defendant, objected to the award of Counsel's fee, on the ground that no notice of this claim had been given. Mr Stewart, for plaintiffs, replied, after which the Bench adhered to the judgment as giren. Scott v. M'Lean.—This was an adjourned ease for I SO, value of a horse hired by plaintiff to defendant, and which died during the term of hire. Mr Stout again appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Harris for defendant, Mr Harris called Mr James, hotel-keeper, Walkouaiti, who deposed that defendant arrived at his house with a buggy and pair of horses, in April last. He arrived at about 11 a.m., and left again at 3 p.m. In the interval the horses were stabled. After being there for an hour or an hour and a-half, witness had his attention drawn to the horse in question.

It was then nibbling away at the hay in the rack. He (witness) did not think that the horse was unfit to do the return journey. Sometimes a horse that appeared unwell in the stable “ freshened up” when it got on to the road. To Mr Stout—l saw the animal about 14 hours after it came in, but I did not examine it carefully. That is all I know about the matter. The Court found the defendant had not exercised that amount of care which might have been expected from a prudent man towards his horse, and was in coosaquence guilty of a breach of the implied undertaking entered into when he hired the horse. In Bray v. Mayne, Gow 1., it was held that proper care and attention had not been shown by the defendant, who drove a horse twelve miles only, after having performed a journey of twenty miles and refused its food. Herethedefendantdrives twenty-six miles, or one half of the intended journey,the horse refuses his food, and yet he is driven back twenty-six miles the same day, Defendant was liable for the value of the horse, but of this value little evidence had been adduced. A sum of L2O seems to be a fair amount, but in letting the horse for a particular journey plaintiff warrants that he is fit and competent, as, should it turn out otherwise, he is not entitled to his hire. Judgment for plaintiff L2O, less L2 amount of hire, being LlB with costs of Court. Mr Harris, on behalf of plaintiff, gave notice of appeal. M'Glashan v. Wilson.—Mr Stewart for plaintiff, and Mr E. Cook for defendant. Plaintiff applied for amendment of the pUint note, which, after argument by counsel, he was allowed to do, and on the application of defendant the hearing of the case was adjourned till Thursday.