CROUPIER CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 93, 20 April 1932, Page 3

CROUPIER CASE.

OWNERSHIP DISPUTE. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. HOUSE NOT GIVEN AWAY. SENT SOUTH FOR TRAINING. The case regarding the ownership of 1 racehorse Croupier was continued in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Hcrdman. The seizure of the horse at Riccarton last November, after jt had run in the Stead Cup, created a turf sensation. Plaintiff is John Joseph Corry, of Blenheim, the defendants John Paterson and James Paterson, merchants, of Auckland. Cony asks for a declaration of ownership; that the partnership between himself and defendants be dissolved; and that accounts be taken between the parties. He also asks that i receiver be appointed, and claims £1000 for the wrongful removal and detention of the horse. The defence is a denial of partnership, defendants asserting that they had always been Hie rightful owners of the horse. They deny that they wrongfully seized the horse, and claimed half the ■irize money received by Corry from August 1 to November 14, 1931. They maintain that possession was given to Corry in accordance with his promise to look after the horse for them, and they claim for a declaration that they are owners of the horse and that plaintiff had no financial interest in him. Up to August 31, 1931, Croupier won five races, for which the racing clubs paid plaintiff approximately £-113, less deductions. From August 1 to November 14, 1931, he won stakes approximately worth £122j. Charm of Auckland. Under cross-examination during the later stages of yesterday's hearing, Corry said he owed John Paterson 23 per cent of Croupier's winnings, but James Paterson's 25 per cent was wiped out by other matters outstanding between them. He had not sent them any account. "If you came to Auckland solely for the sale, which took place on the Friday, wiry did you stay until Tuesday?" asked counsel for the defence. His Honor: You forget the irresistible charm of Auckland.

Witness said that in a letter of February 2G, 1930, Paterson- distinctly claimed that the colt was his and expressed a high opinion of him as a likely winning two-year-old. In his reply witness said, "I will look after your yearling for you. I will charge you plenty for him when your ship comes home and when he wins. In the meantime, that can stand over." Counsel for defendant: Why are you going to charge Mr. Paterson for training your own horse? Witness: That was a figure of speech. They gave me the horse and I always intended that they should have a half share in it. "The first letter definitely setting out the fifty-fifty business was sent to Paterson in June, 1931," said witness. wrote back immediately saying he had never given the horse to me. 'this was the only difference I ever had with Paterson." Witness admitted that ne got several telegrams asking for money due from Croupier's winnings and for information. He said he thought he had replied to these. Question of Partnership. Plaintiff said that in registering the document of August 11 he was" also registering a partnership of 50 per cut ior himself, 25 jier cent for Mr. John laterson and 25 per cent for Mr. James laterson. The partnership was for the horse himself and everything bclon£rin<r to him. ° 6 ° His Honor: These, people almost seem to have been together at one time. ''We suggest they were," said counsel for plaintiff. ffig Honor: It seems to me to be so stupid that they have not got together and settled the matter without all this. ''Croupier cost me about £350 to £400 before he won his first race at Blenheim," said witness, continuing his evidence. "On the day when Croupier was seized I gave a man named Collins, who was Paterson's emissary, a promissory note for £150 for the Patersons. A quarter of an hour later, after the race for the Stead Cup, I saw Colms take the horse and try to knock the boy down. Collins had eight or more jf>licemen with him, so that I could not interfere. Croupier was taken awav on » Iwry. I tried to get the Canterbury Jockey Club to seize the horse, but they wore under the impression that he had "eon taken under legal warrant. There was nothing wrong with the horse. Ho would have been able to carry out ali his engagements."

Plaintiff's Evidence. Continuing his evidence to-dav, plaintiff said he charged £5 10/ a week for the horse from the time he received it. « thought that was. a fair and reasonable charge, as the horso required an immense amount of care. The charge w ilo 15/ for breaking-in was in addition to the weekly charge. Until Uctoher, 1931, lie had not charged up training fees in his ledger. The dispute as to ownership began in June, 19.31. "tti •would not charge training fees for a horse ho regarded as his own. Since June last, after the dispute had arisen, '? had entered up training fees. On his statement he had shown himself as «ue the Patersons £239 for a half snare in Croupier's winnings. Of this M had paid £40, which was all PaterR on asked at the time. Neither of the defendants had asked him for an account. Counsel for the Defence: Do you agree that the horse pulled up very tired after we race at Riccarton.—Certainly not. iou would be tired after running a mile and a half, I suppose. (Laughter.) It is ridiculous to suggest that the horse was tired and overdone. Answering his own counsel, Mr. Corry said it was not possible to render accounts between the time the horso won the Wanganui Guineas and was seized at Riccarton. If he had been asked for money by the Patersons he would have been only too willing to give it if he hud it. It was quite a reasonable thing for a man who was supplying the "sinews of war"' to keep a certain amount in hand for expenses which were continually being incurred. Some time must necessarily have elapsed after the Riccarton meeting before he could render a full statement of account. He gave Patersons' agent a promissory note because he thought he needed the money.

Counsel for the Defence: Much <rood that would do, when he dishonoured"it. Plaintiff's Counsel: I object to that remark. Mr. Cony would certainly have honoured it if his horse had not been taken away in the manner it was. His Honor: I fail to sec how this affects the case. What I have to decide is the ownership of the horse, not extraneous matters. "Bombshell" Instead of Bill. Addressing the Court, counsel for the delenee said defendants' case was quite a simple one. In January, 1030, the Patcrsons decided, in view" of the depression, to sell most of their horses, keeping only Surveyor, Full Measure, and tho colt subsequently known as Croupier, Surveyor was now "pensioned off" and Full Measure went to Australia, where he had not done particularly well. They were satisfied that the colt was worth trying out, but, having announced their intention of giving up racing, they could could not very well run him themselves. They therefore sent him Ut Blenheim to be trained and tried out. It was significant that immediately after the alleged gift of the colt' to Corry, a letter was written to him by defendants expressing the opinion that Croupier was a promising animal and likely to do well. After his first win they wrote expressing gratification and adding, "Let us know how we stand and what we owe you." This certainly did not coincide with the suggestion that Croupier had been given away. It was not until the horse was beginning to prove himself a good one that there was any suggestion from Corry that he regarded the horse as his own. That was the bombshell they got instead of tho bill they had expected. After the Wellington meeting they wired asking for their share of the winnings, but could get no satisfaction whatever. Further communications proved fruitless and defendants had no option but to seize the horse. It was found that the horse had been overraced, and expert testimony to this effect would be called. How Colt Was Bought. The first witness for the defence was John Paterson, one of the defendants. Ho said he asked Corry to bid at the sale, as he did not want to bid himself. This would stop others bidding. Witness wanted to retain possession of the colt, which was subsequently named Croupier, because he thought he would turn out a good one. A full-sister had shown speed, and she was much smaller than the eolt. He asked Corry to take charge of him and keep a record of what he (witness) would owe on account of the colt's keep and training. It was not until June that Corry indicated that he regarded the horse as "his own property. Witness immediately wrote to deny the suggestion of gift. A suggestion was made by Corry that he had bought Croupier" for an unspecified sum, to be met by 50 per cent of the horse's winnings, but witness promptly replied, to point out that tho horse was still his property and would probably be wanted for the stud.

Horse Again in Training. Witness wired to Corry, asking him to send half the stakes won at Wellington, but received no reply. His share would have been £227 10/. Corry gave him £40 when he came to Auckland for the Avondale meeting, saying that was all he got. Witness got no satisfaction when he wired asking for his share of the Christchurch winnings, and ho and his brother had no option but to regain possession of the horse. When Croupier was brought back to Auckland he was not in bad condition, but very, very tired, and unsound in the off foreleg. There would have been no chance of getting him lit for the Auckland summer meeting. The horse was now in training once more. Cross-examined, witness said Corry had paid for the transit of Croupier to Blenheim, but Corry had never asked for payment. If the horse had turned out no good, Corry would have been entitled to collect expenses for the whole time he had had charge of the horse. Witness did not agree that plaintiff was continually claiming ownership interest, as well as his share of the stakes. The fifty-fifty agreement as to winnings would have geen all right if Corry had paid, but he did not pay, and witness did not think he ever intended to do so. Witness had seen a newspaper statement that Corry was allowing him a half-interest in the horse, but he did not contradict this, though ho knew it was untrue. In seizing the horse, defendants were acting on their own account and not on advice. He told his agent to get a promissory note from Corry if he could not get anything else. Witness did not expect to have to pay as much as £5 10/ a week for training expenses. Trainer's Denial. Frederick Smith, who trained for Messrs. Paterson, said Croupier was always a nice looking colt, perhaps a trifle plain, but a fine big animal, and full of promise. Witness emphatically denied that the horse was in poor condition and affected by lice when he left for Blenheim. "That's an absolute lie," he declared.

"There's no reed to be so emphatic about it," remarked the judge, to which witness replied: "Well, it's* a shir on niy character, sir." (Proceeding.)