RACEHORSE DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 138, 13 June 1934, Page 3

RACEHORSE DISPUTE.

DEFERRED REGISTRATION. CLAIM FOP. DAMAGES. The ownership of a prospective racing filly was disputed in a civil action which was commenced before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. A fanner, Gordon Matthew Rodgers, of Auckland (Mr. Simsonj, proceeded against another farmer, Harry E. Whitford, of Takauini (Mr. West), for the return of the filly, and also claimed damages. It was set out in tlte statement of claim that, by an agreement dated July 8, 103.">, defendant sold to plaintiff a bay (illy by Musketoon—Hessian, unit Unit a transfer in accordance with the Units of Racing was signed by the parties and forwarded to the Racing Conterence for registration. Plaintiff duly broke in and trained the filly for racing. It was alleged that defendant, notwithstanding being requested to do so, botli by plaintiff and the secretary of the Racing Conference, neglected to complete the registration of a prior transfer from .1. Donald to himself, in consequence of which plaintiff was prevented from completing the registration of the transfer from defendant to himself, and also, as a result of the defendant's neglect or failure, was unable to enter the filly for racing after it had been trained and prepared. It was further claimed that about the beginning of April last defendant wrongfully obtained possession of the filly and had since neglected to return it. Contending that as a result of defendant's neglect or wrongful action he had suffered considerable damage, plaintiff claimed the return of the filly and £50 damages. Alternatively, if possession of the filly could not be had plaintiff claimed £150 damages. " Enhanced in Value." "It is a significant fact that since this transaction the progeny of Musketoon have been singularly successful, so that the value of the filly is considerably enhanced," said Mr. Simson after outlining the grounds of the claim. Plaintiff, in evidence, said that at the time of the transaction life wife owned a horse of the same breeding, a fact which made him interested in the filly. He noticed the filly had a twisted knee and told defendant that £30 was too much for an animal which was something of a gamble, as it might not stand training. Under the agreement it was agreed that the lilly should be immediately put into training, that defendant should be paid £25 out of the filly's first win and £25 out of its second, and that if the filly did not prove a racing proposition it should be returned to defendant within six months, free of cost.

Witness said that on September 23 he had received a letter from the Racing Conference.saying that the filly was still in the name of J. Donald. "I was so disgusted with all the messing about that I informed defendant that I was turning the filly out until the transfer had been satisfactorily completed," said witness. About the middle of November defendant asked plaintiff if he would let him have the filly back on payment of expenses. Witness declined to do that, ae he had spent a considerable sum oi money on the horse's preparation, but ho told defendant that as soon as the transfer was finalised he would put the filly into training again. In March plaintiff had heard that defendant was trying to get possession of the filly and lie had written to him warning him that if the. animal was interfered with in any way he would claim damages. On March 31 the filly had been taken from, its paddoek without authority. Later plaintiff had been advised by the Racing Conference that the transfer from J. Donald to defendant had been completed. Cross-examined, plaintiff said that he considered he had bought the horse at a price of £50—£25 to be paid on her first win and the same amount on her second victory. If the horse had never won a race he would have got. it for nothing, but it. would not have been worth anything. Second place winnings would not pay expenses. The hearing was adjourned until to-morrow.