INTERESTING RACING CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4580, 8 June 1917, Page 7

INTERESTING RACING CASE.

AGREEMENT TO SELL A HORSE. Press Association Telegram. WELLINGTON, June 7. A civil action of interest to racing men was heard, at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Chapman to-day. Plaintiff was James McLaughlin, horse-trainer, of Trentham, and defendant was Joseph Grant, farmer, Manakau. Tlie statement of claim set out a memorandum dated February 8, of this year that defendant, in consideration of the payment of £l, placed uniter offer to plaintiff until. 5 p.m. on February 13, the racehorse Waimatoa for £525. Defendant affixed the signature,-—'“M. Williams,” to the memorandum and at the time plaintiff understood the signature to ho genuine and the name “Williams” either defendant’s true name or an assumed name in which he owned and raced the horse. Plaintiff accepted defendant’s offer by telegram -before February 13 and, before 5 p.m on that day, tendered! defendant £525, the balance of the purchase money, and applied to defendant specially to perform the said agreement. This defendant refused to do. Plaintiff was still willing to perforin the agreement- and the Court was asked to order defendant to specifically perform the agreement and do all acts necessary to put plaintiff iu full possession of the horse. Plaintiff also claimed! £SOO damages against defendant for wrongfully witholding delivery of the horse. For the defence, it was admitted that defendant gave tlie memorandum. but it was denied that he received the consideration of £l. All the allegations of statement of claim wero denied, except that in which defendant admitted that he signed the document “M. Williams.” Plaintiif well 'knew the name “Williams” was not defendant’s true name or an assumed name in which ho owned and raced the horse. Plaintiff also knew defendant did not own and had not raced the horse. The main point at dispute concerned the real ownership of the horse. Mat Williams, horse-trainer, stated that lie owned; Waimatoa and had given Grant authority to sell only up to a. certain date. His Honor, in giving judgment, said if any action lay against Grant it was for breach of warrant. Tho evidence that ho had no authority to soil and that the horse belonged to Williams was all one way. He felt inclined to believe the evidence of Williams and- could not find there was proof of fraud in the preparation of the document.. If the evidence for tho defence ■were true. Grant over-stepped his authority, and His Honor could not find for plaintiff in face of the evidence given. Judgment would he for defendant with costs.