A JOCKEY'S CLAIM

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 4999, 11 April 1895, Page 2

A JOCKEY'S CLAIM

PLAINTIFF NON-SUITED.

..Russell v. J, Macara.— I This was a claim for £2i, brought by James llussell, jockey, against J. Macara, alleged to be due for twelve losing mounts.

Mr Powiiall, for plaintiff, contended that although plaintiff was employed as an assistant in training horses for defendant, the riding in nice? was not part of plaintiff's duties. " '

James Russell, jockey,aged 23, said lie was licensed by the Metropolitan Club. He was formerly working for the defendant as stable-boy. Was engaged F. Matthews, Mr Macara's trainer, at 10s por week, to work in the stable. Now claimed for riding certain horseo belonging to defendant, as set forth in the claim, No arrangement was made whon Matthews asked him to ride, except ho was told by Matthews that he would be paid for it. Had had fivo or six yearn experience of horses and trainers.

Considerable legal argument here ensued as to whether the witness was competent to give an opinion as to the power of trainers to put up jockeys. Witness continuing said that his experience was that owners usually left it to their trainers to put up jockeys. Mr Macara was present ut all the meetings where witness rode his horses except once at' Tanhcrenikan. Mr Macara always gave witness instructions how to ride except at Taulierenikau, His Worship here interposed; " I see the witness never won inace!"

Witness continuing, said twice when lie could not ride the weights other jockeys had been put up. At all other times lie had been put to ride. The wages paid were for stable duties. There was a certain amount of risk in riding on the flat. His Worship: " There is risk I suppose in the stable" By Mr Beard: Had always been ready to ride. Was not anxious to ride to qualify himself- Never suggested that he should ride. Rode at the suggestion of Mr Matthews. Mr Macara never complained about anything. Had frequently been paid for losing mounts while in the employ of owners, Mr Cave had never paid witness for losing mounts because an agreement had been made with regard to riding. When Matthews first engaged witness it was merely to work in the stable. Had never refusid to ride or complained about riding. Riding was within witness' duties, but he expected to be paid for it. Ho was engaged simply

as a stable hoy. Exercised and galloped horses as a pari, of his duties. All his wages had been settled on leaving Mr Macara last January, Had applied to Mr Macara for payment for the losing mounts when lie loft Mr Macara's employ, and was refused payment, Never asked to be paid for riding before then.

By Mr Powiiall; On one occasion

was too weak to ride, but Mr Macara said he would rather have witness ride. Had an agreement with Mr Cave while in his employ. Had never won any races for Mr Cave.

By flie Bench: Got 10s a week Jiiul found, to clean stable and exercise two horses. Hurt nothing else to do. Tlie.se were all witness' duties, j Had to take horses to raco-meclings. Did not have to clean the stable when, the horses were at the races, or to exercise them, but had to look after them. His wages went on all the same. By Mr Beard: Mr Matthews and another boy were also engaged to look after the horses. By the Bench: Mentioned to the trainer at the time of riding, that he expected to get £'3, Did not ride for the enjoyment of the thing. Hugh Frederick William Matthews, gave evidence that ho had been in the employ of Mr Macara as trainer, at the time Russell was employed. Had charge of Mr Macara's stud and engaged Russell—on behalf of Mr Macara—to net as stableboy, Russell's duty being to act as stable boy, and do as witness told him. He was not engaged as a jockey. Stable-boys usually had a special agreement with owners as to riding, If no agreement were made it was optional with the owner whether the boy was paid or not for riding. The rule of the Racing Club regarding jockeys' payment was outside the stable. Witness had told Mr Macara that he would like Russell to ride Margrave bocause lie was accustomed to ride the

horse in work. Nothing was ever mentioned between witness and Russoll re payment. On one occasion Russell asked Matthews if ho would be paid for losing mounts. Witness told Russell lie ought to see Mr Macara and make some arrangement as he (witness) had done for himself. In a private conversation Mr

Macara told witness that he did not

intend to pay Russell for losing mounts. There was a certain amount of risk and danger about riding, Was awnro that the amount fixed for a losing mount was £2.

By Mr Beard: Russeliwas always

anxious to ride, the horses. He begged and prayed to be allowed to do so, Mr Macara was averse to Russell riding Brookfield.but decided to. give liim a chance, and also because they could not get anyone to ride the weight. The rule was that a stable boy did not get paid for riding, being in the owner's employ at the timo. ' In tlie stablos of Mr Stead, Mr Cutts, and others that he kueiv, this was the case, ■ Mr Beard, for defendant, submitted that there was absolutely no case. If an, employe, who might bo engaged to do certain work, was directed to do other work outside that agreed upon, his remedy was simple. He could give notice to his employer that he required additional remuneration. 1 The rules of racing fixing jockeys' fees could in 110 way affect the law, and had been merely adopted to.prevent owners andothers being imposed upon by independent jockeys. Mr Pownall submitted, that a horso was entered for a race subject to'the rules cf racing, and ho went further and argued that these rules became law; The riding in races,'of a stable boy, was clearly outside his duties, and ,in the.,absence of an agreement, both owner and jockey were ' bound by the rule 157 a,' under which , jockeys we licensed. >1 stitblo'boy might carry on for years, and* never be called npon to ride and yet life jvages jvould go just.tlie'same,. : Tho boy'.was. engaged in the,stable, when he rodo he became a jockey, and was subject to the rules'of racing, "

' His Worship said it was for Mr Pqiviiall to show that ■ Mr : Macava had made an agreement to pay, the. bojf for'ridlng.'[■ The'. !plairitiif was engaged as stable boy, and he could notiecovor for any ' amount outside his ordinary duties unless an ex-

pres9. prointse was made to pay. Thora 1 was | 'no 'express promise shown by evidence, nor could he see a caße of an iinplied'promise, Plaintiff would therefore be nonsuited with costs 9s. Witnesses summoned for the defence, did not claim expcnses.