In Newcomen v. Lynch[[212]] it was held, where the rules of a race provide that the decision of the stewards should be final, that applies to questions of construction of the rules of the race, as well as to questions of fact.

Construction of agreement by the Court.

But where the agreement does not contemplate any special method of deciding disputes, the Court will construe it. If necessary, parol evidence will be admitted to explain conventional or sporting terms.

Parol evidence.

Thus, in Hussey v. Crickett,[[213]] evidence was admitted to explain the term “Rump and dozen.” In Evans v. Pratt,[[214]] it was explained that an agreement for a steeplechase “across country” meant a course over all obstructions, and prohibited going through open gates.

In Daintree v. Hutchinson[[215]] there was an agreement between plaintiff and defendant for a dog match to be run on the Wednesday during the Newmarket February Meeting, 1841, P.P. Plaintiff was member of the Newmarket Club, but defendant was not. By the rules of this club, the February Meeting was fixed at the previous November Meeting, for a certain date, weather permitting. On the day of the meeting there was a hard frost, and the club adjourned to another day, weather permitting. The meeting had again to be put off to a subsequent Tuesday. On the Wednesday after that, the plaintiff appeared, ready to run the race, but defendant did not turn up. Defendant contended that the agreement meant the Wednesday in the week originally fixed for the Newmarket Meeting. But the Court held that the rules of the club were admissible to show that the meeting was what Baron Parke called a “moveable feast,” and that the true construction was that the race should come off on the Wednesday in any week in which the meeting should actually take place. Held, also, that parol evidence was admissible to explain that the letters P.P. meant that the parties were either to run the match or forfeit the stakes.

Play or pay.

It may, perhaps, be mentioned here that the term “play or pay” is well known and understood both in racing and betting matters. In most races the conditions provide, that if the owner of a horse nominated withdraws him from the race he pays a smaller sum than the stake, usually half the stake, by way of “forfeit.” In some cases, however, he still remains liable for the whole stake and then it is called a “play or pay” race. So in betting, to say that a bet is “p.p.” means that if the horse backed does not run the backer still has to pay.[[216]]

Gentleman rider.

As to the construction of the term “gentleman rider,” see Walmsley v. Mathews (3 M. & G., 133).