Billiards in the Law Courts
Lonsdale v. Billiard Association
This action was brought before the Lord Chief Justice by Mr. H. A. O. Lonsdale, the well-known ex-amateur billiard champion, to test the legality of the action of the Billiard Association in publishing their suspension of him as an amateur player because he had taken part, with Stevenson, in a charity match for which admission was charged at the door. After evidence on both sides in the course of a two days' hearing, the Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said: The jury must look at the whole of the document published by defendants and consider whether it was a document calculated to hold the plaintiff up to contempt or lower him in the opinion of his fellows. It was only fair to the defendants to say that the Stevenson match was advertised while Mr. Lonsdale was still a member of the B.A., and it was plain from their own rules that the suspension did not make Mr. Lonsdale any other than an amateur. The question for the jury was whether any construction could be placed upon the published suspension other than that Mr. Lonsdale had been suspended solely because he had broken a regulation of the B.A. Had there been a libel and had there been malice?
The jury returned into court after a short retirement with a verdict for the defendants.
Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs.
Roberts v. Gray
In this action, also before the Lord Chief Justice, John Roberts, the veteran ex-champion, sued George Gray, the phenomenal boy billiardist, through his father (Mr. H. W. Gray) for £6,000 for breach of contract, the statement of claim alleging that, after signing a contract with the plaintiff to play under his management around the world, he withdrew without sufficient cause from the agreement.
The Lord Chief Justice, after summing up, said he would leave the following questions to the jury: —
1. Was there fraudulent representation by plaintiff with regard to the date of the termination of his bonzoline ball contract?
2. Was plaintiff always willing to carry through the contract?
3. Damages, if plaintiff succeeded.
Other questions he would deal with himself, and these were:—
1. Was the contract beneficial to defendant?
2. If so, was its beneficial character materially injured by the inability of Roberts to play with any other ball than bonzoline for two months after the tour was commenced?
The jury found no fraudulent representation by plaintiff, and awarded him damages £1,500.
His Lordship said he would hear arguments on the two questions of law for his consideration after he had concluded his circuit work in the North of England.