No corrections yet
JOCKEY AND OWNER , SAM LOATES AND HIS EARNINGS. The action brought by Mr Sam Loates, the jockey, against Sir John Blundell Maple, was down for hearing before Mr Justice Wright in the King's Bench Divi sion on March 5_ Mr Gill, in opening the case, said the plaintiff sought to recover L300 from the defendant under an agreement which was entered into on October 28, 1899. Mr L2ates and Sir John entered into an agree ment by which Loates was retained for three years. Sir John was to have first claim on Loates's services during the rac ing seasons of 1900-1-2. During the time Loates was to make no charge for riding trials, but was to receive "a retainer or salary" of L2000-L1000 to. be paid at the commencement of the racing season and L1000 at the close. There was also a pro vision for travelling expenses,and Sir John was to pay him L25 for each winner owned by the defendant and ridden by the plain tiff. The agreement also provided that in the event of the death of Sir John, or if from any other cause he should be desirous of terminating the agreement, it could be done by giving notice in writing and pay ing Loates L1000 and the annual retain ing fee for the current year. LARGE WINNINGS. If Loates were to die or fail to secure his licence.during the three years, then the agreement should be at an end. In 1900 and 1901 Loates rode successfully for Sir John Blundell Maple, and the rela tions between the parties were the most cordial, because at the end of 1901 the de fendant had won during the year over L20,000. In the course of 1901, however, Loates met with severe accidents. The most serious was on November 14, at Nor thampton, when he broke his. thigh. On March 16, 1902, Sir John wrote from Beau lieu, saying : "I see from the 'Calendar' that you have not got your licence for this season, and, therefore, the agreement between you and myself is at an end. Should you at any later date have a license granted, and should you feel strong enough to do justice to my horses, I shall be pleased to hear from you as t3 making some new arrangement in view of our past pleasant relations." On April 23rd plaintiff obtained his licence, and on the 28th wrote to, the de fendant informing him of the fact that he was willing and ready to ride for Sir John according to the agreement, but Sir John seemed to have taken hold of the sugges tion of the stewards that Loates should -.-t ride at this particular time as being a ground for putting an end to the agree ment. It was now contended by the de fendant that under the agreement, the li cence being withheld in this way in conse quence of the physical condition of the plaintiff, he had the right to put an end to the arrangement. JUDGMENT. Mr Samuel Loates was called,, and bore out counsel's statements. At the, conclusion of the plaintiff's case, Sir E. Clarke submitted that the 'plain-. tiff had no case. The fact, he said, that Loates did not at one time have a licence, was, under the agreement, sufficient to put an end tj the existing arrangements.Coun sel cited cases in support of his contention. Mr Justice Wright said he had come to the conclusion that the defendant had not given notice to the plaintiff to determine the agreement, and, in the circumstances, Loates could not recover the L1000 pen alty; but he was entitled under the con tract to his retaining fee of L2000 far the year 1902. Judgment accordingly for the plaintiff, with' costs, a stay of execution pending an appeal being granted.-"Daily News."