DISPUTE ABOUT HORSE

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21726, 7 March 1936, Page 8

DISPUTE ABOUT HORSE

! PURCHASE FOR CLOSED PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT IN SUPREME COURT A dispute about the alleged sdle of. a trotting horse, Racketeer, was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday morning, whe- 1 Frederick Wallis, jun,, a timber merchant, of Gore, the plaintiff in an action against Claude Walsh, Ernest Walsh, and Leo Walsh, butchers, of Westport, asked for thfe; court s direction on certain points of law. For the defendants it’was denied that a contract had been made, and that, if it had been entered into, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any benefit under it, as he was the undisclosed principal Of an agent, and the terms of sale had .been made by the defend-, ants in ignorance of the relationship. Mr Justice Norther oft’ was on the bench. Mr R. T. Twyneham represented Wallis, and Mr L. E. Morgan, of Reefton, appeared for the defendants.. , ■ . Mr Twyneham explained that an action, was being brought for an alleged breach of contract for the, sale of a horse named Racketeer, but before the action was heard it was thought desirable tha'; the court should decide three questions. ’ The first was whether the rules of the New Zealand ■Trotting Association were expressly or impliedly incorporated in the contract which was alleged to have been made by three telegrams. The second question was whether the telegrams constituted a binding contract, and the third was whether the plaintiff. ■as the undisclosed principal of a trainer named, R. B. Berry, was entitled to the benefit of the alleged contract arising from the telegrams. Mr Twyneham submitted that a ‘ contract had been made by the telegrams. Belfry, acting for his undisclosed principal, the plaintiff in the case, had sent a telegram to Claude Walsh, asking: “If Racketeer for sale wire bedrock price or alternatively cash and contingency.” In reply, Walsh said:’ “Price £6OO. , £450 cash and two contingencies.” Berry then replied: “Accept offer as per your telegram.” Both ‘counsel then addressed the court on the legal aspects of the case, after which his Honour said that the personality of the principal was important, because , the contingencies were wrapped up in that point. He had to hold that Wallis was not entitled to benefit from the transaction. He was not disposed to reply to the first two questions, as the third question was the paramount issue. Costs would be allowed the defendants on the argument.