OWNERSHIP DISPUTE

Evening Post, Issue 12, 14 July 1936, Page 11

OWNERSHIP DISPUTE

QUEEN OF SONG

ALLEGED CONTRACT TO

SELL

(l)y Telegraph.—Press Association.)

DUNEDIN, This Day

The ownership of Queen of Song, one of the best racing marcs in the Dominion and winner this season of several important racfs, is involved in a case which commenced in the Supreme Court this morning and is likely to last several days. The plaintiff is Marion Beale, of Green Island, and the defendants Thomas Edwin Hide, farmer, of Seadown, and Patrick Thomas Hogan, horse trainer, of Washdyke.

The plaintiff alleged that by an agreement of December 7, 1934, between her and Hide the defendant leased the mare to her till August 1, 1935; also granting her a right of purchase for £150 on or before that date; that on August 1 she by a telegram letter exercised her purchase right but that Hide refused specific performance of contract and that in consequence she had lost the profit she would have made by racing the mare. ,The plaintiff sought, specific performance of the contract or £850 as damages. Judgment was also sought for £1043 as. further damages, and from Hogan £1000 if possession was not given.

The statement of defence, while denying an agreement, contended that if entered into it was either rescinded mutually or repudiated by the plaintiff* and further that if the agreement'granted a purchase right it was* not exercised within the time specified.

Mr. Solomon, for the plaintiff, stated that, the mare was sold to Hogan,' who now had possession, and it was submitted that when Hogan purchased the '. mare he was aware of the steps taken1 by the plaintiff to exercise her purchase right. As it was not desired'to ..graze the mare at the Taieri owing to 'danger ,of worms it was decided, to ask Hide to graze it at .Seadown, and the allegation that sending the" mare to Seadown was a rescission of. lease was denied. ,

Difficult and important/ law questions were involved which will be argued later. Mr. Thomas, Christchurch, appears for Hide; and Mr. Donnelly, Christchurch,' for Hogan.

John Arthur Beale, husband of the plaintiff, stated that on one occasion Shaw, a Wingatui trainer, told him that a man named Tweedie wanted to buy the mare for £190. The sale was agreed to, Tweedie giving .a cheque, but later Tweedie did not like the deal and received the money back.

Mr. Donnelly: At the time you exer--tcised the option you resold the mare •to-Tweedie at a profit of £40?

Witness: Yes. 5 Counsel: So that if the mare had been delivered to you at the beginning of August all your wife would have got was £40?— Yes.

Is it not ' a fact that you simply waited to see how the mare turned out before you made the claim?— No. ,

. Why did you turn .her over for ..£4o?—Because she was sore at the time. Tweedie had more money than me and could afford to take a risk. , •■ • : ■• ■

The case is proceeding.