THE CROUPIER CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 252, 24 October 1932, Page 12

THE CROUPIER CASE.

FINDING OF CONFERENCE. OWNERS AND HORSE DISQUALIFIED. OUT FOR TWELVE MONTHS. (By Telegraph.—Special to *' Star.") WELLINGTON, Sunday. The executive committee of the New Zealand Racing Conference has disqualified John, and James Paterson, of Auck-land*-and J. J- Corry, of Blenheim, and the horse Croupier for twelve months as from October 22, 1932. , The action wag -taken under rule 121 of the New Zealand Rules of Racing, which states: —■ "Every person who in, or in connection with, any application for registration of a horse, wilfully gives any false or misleading information or particulars, may lie disqualified at any time by the executive committee, and the horse in respect of which such offence has been committed may also be so disqualified." After contesting the Stead Gold Cup at Riccarton on November 14 of last year Croupier was seized from his attendant liy a man acting, on behalf of Paterson Bros., who alleged they were the owTiers, and taken to Auckland. Previous to the horse being seized, he had raced in Mr. J. J. Corry's name, and # Mr. Corry subsequently issued a writ in the Supreme Court against the Paterson Bros., stating that the horse was held in partnership by Messrs. Paterson Bros, and himself. The decision of the Court was that there was a partnership in the racing of the horse, and an order was made for the dissolution of same and for accounts to be taken. Appeal Court's Decision. Against this decision Corry appealed and new evidence was admitted, which the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in delivering the decision of the Appeal Court, said did not affect in the least the finding that the horse Croupier was never the subject of a gift to appellant, but affected the question of partnership in the horse. His Honor said the position in his view was perfectly plain. The parties had, prior to August, 1931, deliberately committed a breach of the Rules of Racing, and that breach seemed to amount to a corrupt practice within those rules. They had rendered themselves and the horse liable to disqualification, and the consequences to the appellant, at all events, were a very serious matter. He had procured himself to be registered as the owner of the horse of which he was not, in fact, the owner, and the horse was run in several races in his name as owner.

"Co-Owners." His Honor continued that, be that as it may, he was of opinion that on the material available it should be held the parties had been, as from August 1, 1931, co-owners of the horse in the proportion of one-half to Corry and one-fourth to each of the Patersons. As to appellant's claim for damages, his Honor held that the proper remedy was for accounts to be taken and not for damages, and that in any event it could not be said any damage had arisen from the wrongful termination of the partnership by which the parties had been engaged in "a transaction which was illegal according to the racing rules, and which, immediately on its becoming known, would presumably have resulted in disqualification. His Honor refused to allow costs to the appellant, saying that, apart from the question of the., admission of fresh evidence, the partis'-were;in the same position/ It could (apt be said the transactions giving rise to >• the litigation had been very creditable to either of them.