CROUPIER AGAIN.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 237, 7 October 1933, Page 12

CROUPIER AGAIN.

CLAIM BY TRAINER.

CO-OWNER DENIES LIABILITY.

COURT RESERVES DECISION". The racehorse Croupier again figured prominently in a Court action, when George Holland, horse trainer, of Ellerslie, yesterday brought a claim to recover £69 training fees and £13 expenses, which he claimed were owing to him in respect of training fees and care of the horse. ' The hearing occupied the whole of the afternoon, and Mr. Justice Herdman reserved judgment. The plaintiff brought the action against Messrs. John and James Patergon, merchants, as the owners of Croupier prior to its sale to Mr. R. J. Murphy, of Wellington, in February last, for 725 guineas. The defendants, the Paterson brothers, cited and joined J. J. Corry, of Blenheim, and C. J. Hewlett, registrar of the Supreme Court, as defendants —Corry as part owner of the horse up to February last, and the registrar as the receiver appointed by the Court. The claim by Holland originally was for £IS9 training fees and £13 expenses, but of the amount he has received £120. The defendants Paterson denied liability for the full amount claimed, also the fee of £3 10/ a week as a training charge. Corry denied liability for any portion of the amount. The registrar merely disputed the rate charged {is training fee. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. G. P. Finlay, the Patersons by Mr. E. Inder, Corry by Mr. H. W. Northcroft, and tile registrar by Mr. L. F. Rudd. Trainer's Evidence. The main question the Court was asked to decide was whether Corry should pay half the amount of the training fees claimed, and the Paterson brothers one quarter each. George Albert Holland, horse trainer, of Ellerslie, said that in November, 1931,

he went to Frankton and took delivery , of Croupier at the request of defendants Paterson. The horse was then in course

of transit from Christchurch to Auck-

land. Witness had charge of the horse till November 29, 1931. The standard

charge for training was £3 10/ a week, plus 10 per cent from winnings. Following the Court of Appeal decision the horse was disqualified, and from October 22, 1932, he did not train the horse on the racetrack, but kept him fit by constant exercise on the roads. It cost at least 30/ a week to feed a racehorse.

Mr. Northeroft: Your instructions always-came from the Patersons? —Yes.

And they told you they were the owners of the horse and not Corry ? — Yes.

You knew that they denied that Corry had any rights to the horse? — Yes.

The horse was unfit when delivered to you?— Unfit for racing.

At this time you knew that the horse •was registered in Corry's name ?—He raced in his name.

His Honor: What is the charge for looking after a horse if he is not being trained?— That makes no difference in the case of this horse. He was a colt, and a one-man horse.

Have you been paid all the money owing to you by the Patersons in respect of other horses ? —No. How much do they owe you now? Witness : Do I have to answer that question, your Honor? His Honor: Yes.

Mr. Northcroft: How much do they owe you now ? —About £40.

Isn't it a fact that the Patersons have paid £105 rent for you?—No, I think, £30.

If they can show that they paid 4105 that will cancel any indebtedness T —No, I was training other horses fox them. They dkl not always pay me training fees, and sometimes paid the rent.

Have you any books of accounts? — I can get a statement. Charges for Training. Continuing, witness said when he was training Land Measure and Full Measure, he charged Patersons £3 10/ a ■week for training one, and for the training of the other the Patersons paid the rent, £2 17/0.

Full Measure was sold to Montgomery ? —Yes.

What did you chargo him per week ? — £3.

Why only . £3 ?—Beggars can't be choosers.

Mr. Finlay: What money have you received in respect of Croupier?—£l2o advanced by the registrar on account. ; John Thorpe, trainer, said he had had s lifetime's experience with racehorses. A fair charge for either training or looking after Croupier would be £3 10/ or £4 a week. Being a stallion, he was more trouble to look after when not in training.

Frederick Stenning, trainer, said £3 10/ a week and a percentage of winnings was a fair charge for looking after or training a horse like Croupier. Witness had been associated with Croupier for six wgeks while Holland was in Christchurch. Lost His "Jumper." " "He is a one-man horse," said witness, "and you have to be very careful with him. He took a 12/6 jumper off me, and I have not seen any of it since." Witness said looking after a stallion was one man's work. John Paterson, One of the defendants, said Croupier, prior to November, 1931, was in the possession of Corry. The horse had won several races,and a substantial sum in money, but though witness had corresponded with Corry lie could get no satisfaction, and on November 1931, witness had the horse seized by an agent. Mr. Inder: Have you ever paid Holland any moneys in respect of Croupier?— No. Do you owe Holland any money, exclusive of the Croupier claim?— Yes, between £30 and £40. Argument For Corry. Mr. Northcroft submitted that in tlieir action the Patersons had not acted as a partner of Corry, but in denial of Corry, therefore what they did could not be blinding upon Corry. "The Patersons had denied all along that Corry was a partner in the ownership of Croupier, and had further declared in their pleadings in a previous action that if there was a partnership it was a partnership at will and was determined when the Patersons had the horse seized in November, 1931. A contract made by the Patersons in such circumstances, counsel said, could not be binding upon Corry, because a firm could only be hound by a contract entered into by a partner as partner. The Patersons when j the contract was made with Holland denied that Corry was a partner, 1