The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-27 00:00:00

THE DISPUTED BOAT PACE.

The case of Sadler v, Smith came before the Court of Ex-
chequer on Friday, before Lord Chief Baron Kelley, Mr.
Justice Willes, Mr. Baron Channel, Mr. Justice Keating,
Mr. Baron Pigott, and Mr. Baron Cleasby. The case arose
out of the disputed boat-race between Joseph Sadler
and Harry K elly for the championship of the
Thames and £2OO a side, and the action was
brought by Sadler against the stakeholder, to
recover his share of the stakes, the whole of which has
been paid over to Kelly by defendant, according to the
decision of the referee, Mr. Biffen, which was given in
favour of Kelly. It will be remembered that on the first
day of the meeting between the two men a foul occurred,
for which both men were held blameable, and a race over
on the following day was ordered. According to these
directions the men appeared at the starting point, but
great delay occurred in starting, and at last the referee
called Kelly and forwarded by him instructions to Sadler
to the effect that if he (Sadler) did not start
at once, Kelly was to row over without him. Kelly rowed
down towards towards Sadler who did not start, and the
referee, assuming that his order had been communicated to
the cutter, awarded the stakes to Kelly after he had rowed
over the course. Sadler also rowed overalmost immediately
afterwards, reached the referee after the decision had been
given, and protested against such decision, on the ground
that he had received no order to start, and was unaware
that Kelly had been directed to row over. On the written
judgment of the referee, Mr. James Smith, the stakeholder
and proprietor of the Sportsman newspaper, paid over the
money to Kelly, after receiving an indemnity for the
costs of legal proceedings threatened. Subsequently an
action was brought by Sadler to receive his share of the
stakes on the ground that there had been no race, and
it was tried at the Guildhall Sittings of the Court of
Queen's Bench, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a
jury. A great deal of evidence was given as to whether
or not Kelly communicated to Sadler the referee's order to
start, the plaintiff Sadler contending that 'such order
was not given, and the referee himself admitting
that he had no means of ascertaining before
the decision was given, whether his directions had
been carried out or not. The jury, in answer to questions
of the judge, found that the order to start had not been
given to Sadler; hat therefore there was no race, and con-
sequently the plaintiff was entitled to the money he had
himself deposited. A verdict was therefore given for
plaintiff, and on the_case being tried before the judge in
the Court of Queen's Bench, at Westminster, the court
decided that though in a race the referee's decision must
be final, in this case there was no .race, as there had been
no start.

The case now again came up as a special case from the
Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Henry
James, and Mr. Brockwood were for the plaintiff Sadler;
and Mr. Garth, Q.C., with him Mr. Tennant, for the
defendant.

Mr. Garth, at considerable length, contended that the
referee's decision was absolutely binding and conclusive,
and that whether or not he knew that his order was
communicated to Sadler;his decision was final.
The Lord Chief Baron considered it quite clear that the
referee decided this point without the means of seeing for
himself, or without taking evidence upon the matter.
Mr. Justice "Mlles thought the referee's decision was
that Kelley should have the money if he gave notice to
Sadler, and the latter disobeyed it; but there was not
evidence to shew that he did give that notice to Sadler.

concludea .—”,„,„t_
Itcritgoafith-ca ng upon tile respondents to argue the

case,

The Lord Chief Baron delivered the judgment of the
court. He said the case was of great importance, because
it involved a principle and a question applicable to,
and governing a great variety of cases. The main
question was how far the power of an arbitrator or referee
to decide upon matters and questions within his jurisdiction
was to be exercised subject, if at all, to the control
of the court of law. In this case they did not intend to
interfere with the settled law in the slightest degree, viz.,
that upon every question within the jurisdiction of a
referee when ho had expressed and published his decision
the court of law had no right to interfere. In the present
case the referee had decided, not upon the questicn
within his jurisdiction, for he had no materials and
no means of knowing the grounds upon which he
constituted himself to act. Ho made a communication to
Kelly, ;which the latter was to communicate to Sadler
when the men were rowing about before the alleged
start ; and Kelly having rowed over the
course without having communicated with Sadler, and
without giving him a fair opportunity of starting, the
referee awarded Kelly the stakes. The referee dearly
thought that in order to constitute a start according to the
agreement, Sadler was to be communicated with ;
and this not having been done there was no start and no
race; and consequently the matter never came within his
jurisdiction, hence the decision was null and void. On
this ground alone they must affirm the decision of the
court below.