SALE OF A TROTTER.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 214, 10 September 1925, Page 14

SALE OF A TROTTER.

CLAIM ON PROMISSORY NOTE. QUALITIES OF ROTO MANUKU. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) , HAMH,TON, this day. The merits and demerits of the trotting stallion Roto Manuku.were debated in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday, during the hearing of a case in which Albert Edward Wight, farmer, of Te Aroha, sued Stanley MeConnochie, carrier, of Te Aroha for £2GI 5/ allegedly due on a promissory note. Mr. G. P. Finlay, instructed by Mr. A. B. James, appeared for plaintiff and Mr. F. D. McLiver for defendant.

It appears that a bill of sale for £150 was given by the original owner of the horse Roto Manuku, one Stewart, to plaintiff in February, 1921. On April 10, 1923, Koto Manuku was sold to the defendant, MeConnochie, and a promissory note was given by Stewart, the bill of sale having been released. Stewart then bought a new horse Called Advance, which, was bought with plaintiff's consent for £200. On June 17, 1024, Stewart having secured Advance, a bill of sale was given by him for £250 to plaintiff, who guaranteed his overdraft. In September, 1924, an exchange was arranged between Stewart and defendant (MeConnochie), Stewart taking back Roto Manuku and receiving £50 from defendant, for which he handed back Advance to defendant; A new bill of sale was executed in September, 1924, to defendant over Roto Manuku, and it was on this, instrument that the' claim was made.' ' Plaintiff gave a narration of the various transactions and stated that -he never owned Roto Manuku, and the only interest he ever held in Advance was, the bill of sale given him by Stewart for guaranteeing the latter's overdraft for £140 at the bank. Plaintiff later consented to the exchange of Roto Manuku for Advance, plaintiff taking a new* bill of sale. - Up to this date he had heard no; complaint about the soundness of Roto. Manuku, and whenever plaintiff mentioned the promissory note, MeConnochie asked for time. Eventually Stewart disappeared and the first plaintiff ever heard of the alleged unfitness of the horse was in April last, when he asked MeConnochie what he was going to do about the promissory note. Defendant then said he > would pay the sum, but only when he had got judgment against plaintiff for £600. The defence was that the promissory note was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation by plaintiff, who made all the representations in connection with the sale of the horse, and who said the horse was a "certain" sire. In cross-examination plaintiff said he knew nothing of-the. history of Roto Manuku, except that it was a wellknown trotting stallion, when he lent Stewart £150 in 1921. Stewart had told him that he had paid. £300 for the horse. Plaintiff did not inspect;, the, horse nor have a report made onit:,He was unaware that no interest was charged in the original bill of sale when the instrument wag drawn up. He merely left the matter in the hands of his solicitor. Apparently, also, no "term" was mentioned in the bill. It was not true that he (plaintiff) had ever tried to sell Roto Manuku to one Robert Taylor. Defendant, MeConnochie, stated that plaintiff represented the horse to be his, and approached him (MeConnochie) with a view to buying it. He told him the animal was a "certain" sire, and that if he travelled him he would make a lot of money out of him. He 6aid he did not want any money then, but that he could pay him later when he got his money from the owners of the mares. When the horse was found, to be of little use for stud purposes plaintiff then assured him that Advance was a proved sire, and induced the exchange. Advance was, however, a bigger failure than Roto Manuku, and was now eating his head off. He (defendant) had no money in the first place, and was told by Wight that he did not need any, and. that he could give a P.N. for it, and that he would make plenty of money out of travelling it. Defendant said he was •asked to sign the promissory note as a protection in case either of them died. He did not know the binding nature of such a document at the time. The horse for stud purposes was almost useless, and the percentage of failures was !"!_. ye great. [_Z Continuing, defendant said that when he agreed to take the liorse it was the outcome of what, he had been told by _g plaintiff. He remembered signing a document agreeing to pay the first, seven service fees to Wight. Witness said he repudiated the P.K about a

week before it was "due. He collected a few fees from the first-horse, and about £30 from the second-horse. .

_j> Cross-examined by "Mr/ Finla- de- * .fendant stated that he did not'know that Stewart was the'real owner of" the horse, and it came as a: great Burpriße to hiA. He knew that, a notice had been sent to the Trotting Association to have the horse put in-his name. He had never agreed to pay-;" £5.0. for Roto .Manuku. He made no' inquiry as to the history of Advance or -to the achieve-ments-of his progeny before buying,him. He had assigned to a trustee for creditors all" service but in consideration of tliat had not been released of his, liabilities. He knew Advance lost condition .badly through the season. Evidence was given hy a number of witnesses for both sides as to the sound-, ness. of Roto Manuku as a sire.

HisJEonor found for plaintiff,;;oij, both claim and 'counter-claim, with costs.