CROUPIER CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 225, 22 September 1932, Page 3

CROUPIER CASE.

COURT RESERVES DECISION. JOHN" CORRY'S APPEAL. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. After hearing counsel, the Court'of Appeal this afternoon reserved decision in respect of the appeal of John Joseph Corry, merchant, of Blenheim, from the judgment of Mr. Justice Herdman, delivered in Auckland last May, in the action concerning the horse Croupier brought by him against John Paterson and James Paterson, merchants, of Auckland. The case arose out of the seizure of the horse after running in the Stead Gold Cup at Riecarton on the concluding day of the New Zealand Cup meeting in November. Continuing his address, counsel for appellant contended that it was not until Patereons learned of the horse's first classic success, in September, 1931, that they first repudiated the arrangement arrived at in August of that year. Independently of the question of ownership of the horse, there was a partnership as to its running, and the seizure of the horse amounted to a breach of that partnership, entitling Corry to damages. Finally it was submitted that the Court should direct its attention to the excellent prospects of further success ehown by Croupier at the time it was seized and taken to Auckland. Loss resulting from the seizure should entitle appellant to substantial damages on that account. Counsel for the respondents contended that appellant's claim to a half-share in the racehorse Croupier could be based only on a presumed gift or upon a contract. In order to prove a gift, the appellant Corry must prove the clear intention on the part of the Paterson brothers to renounce all interest in the horse. The evidence, counsel said, showed clearly not only that the respondents never expressed such intention, but that the appellant Corry never believed a gift of the horse had been made to him. The only evidence on the question whether Corry derived any interest in Croupier by contract with Paterson brothers was notice of change of ownership of halfshare in Croupier from Corry to Paterisons. The respondents, counsel submitted, were driven to enter into this document by fear of disqualification by the Racing Conference for not disclosing their ownership in Croupier. It did not, however, stop them from raising the question of ownership subsequently. As far as the question of damages was concerned, it was submitted that Paterson brothers had a legal right as owners or co-owners to seize the horse as they did.