A TROTTER’S FEED

Evening Star, Issue 21569, 15 November 1933, Page 14

A TROTTER’S FEED

DISPUTE BETWEEN TRAINERS JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF Judgment for plaintiff for £6 was given by Mr J. R. Bartholomew’, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon in the case in which George B. Wallace proceeded against Matthew Henry Dawson on a claim for £l4 14s, the value of horse-feed which .plaintiff stated should have been supplied by the defendant under the terms of an agreement. ' The defendant made a counter-claim for £57 18s 6d, on the ground that, though lie had the right to train and race the mare when ai;d where he thought fit, Wallace had refused to allow it to be trained ; consequently it could not be raced. The sum claimed consisted of the cost of the half-share, nomination fees, track fees, and railage. Mr D. A: Solomon appeared for the plaintiff and Mr'B. S. Irwin for the defendant. , , , The case for the plaintiff had Veen heard in the morning, and in opening the case for the, defendant Mr 1 Irwin made the suggestion that the court would have its suspicions about the evidence. He added that Wallace, having obtained Dawson’s £2o, wanted him to have rio say in.the running of the mare. Wallace at first purchased feed for which Dawson had to pay.,. Then it was arranged that supplies should be obtained from Dawson’s stables. If the amount was short Wallace should have asked for more, and it would have been supplied. Yet he did not tell Dawson that the supplies were insufficient. When, during March, the defendant found that he was not allowed to race the horse he ceased to supply feed. Evidence would be given that the stables were usually locked, with the result that he could, not obtain the mare when he wanted it. . The defendant, in the course of lus evidence, said that when Wallace asked him to buy a half-share in the horse he said that. it was better than Harold Logan. Wallace continually promised to bring-the horse to Forbury Park for training, but failed to do so. Evidence was also given by Thomas Douglas Patterson, William Sanderson, David Anderson, and Leonard Smith. The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that he would deal with the coun-ter-claim first. The evidence disclosed a - fearful muddle, but the defendant had got himself into a mess and had allowed matters to drift on until the position had become worse. The evidence did not show’ any refusal pn ,the part of Wallace to allow the horse to be trained. The defendant’s evidence had been in loose and general terms. Matters had come to a head before the Oamaru Meeting. .The defendant had ■nominated the horse and had _ asked that it should be brought to him for a trial before the meeting, Instead he bad been given a message that the horse had lost a shoe, and that so far as Wallace w’as concerned the trip was off Dawson had not concerned himself further, and had not seen "Wallace for three months aftcrw’ards. Wallace s message had not constituted a refusal to allow Dawson to train the horse. Both Wallace and Kirk had claimed that it was hopeless for Dawson to drive the horse on account of his weight, and that unless some other person drove it was useless for the horse to go to Oamaru. Wallace and his witnesses stated that Dawson had been too busy training other horses . to tram Rhodamine. If Dawson’s evidence was correct he could have insisted that something should be done, but he had lot matters slide. It was nonsense to say that the horse had been locked up and that he could not get at it. Dawson had been completely at fault, and his liability under the agreement remained. Judgment would be given lor Wallace on the counter-claim. The position with respect to the feed was very unsatisfactory. It was claimed that insufficient bad been supplied, but Wallace should have had no difficulty in getting all he wanted. Since March, however, the position had been different, and Wallace was entitled to claim for feed at the rate of 10s a week for twelve weeks. Judgment would therefore be given for Wallace for £6. Wallace was also allowed costs amounting to £8 18s,-