HORSE-OWNER SUED

Grey River Argus, 4 April 1925, Page 3

HORSE-OWNER SUED

FOR TRAINER’S . EXPENSES < € — Interesting Legal Point HOKITIKA SPORTSMAN CONCERNED. ASHBURTON, April 3. The Question of whether a trainer can pledge an owner’s credit for the stabling of a horse and for the train, cr’s keep, was discussed at the Magistrate’s Court. before Mr Mosley, S.M., to-day, whgh O. Digby (Ashburton) proceeded against P. Stephens, of Hokitika, for £3 3/-. When a. bulky sheaf of papers was placed before him, the Magistrate said that there were a good many papers for so small a claim. Mr North, for the plaintiff, said that a considerable stun had been spent al. ready in costs. Considerable evidcnee, taken at Hokitika and Leeston, was imt in. The plaintiff said 'lint Hie trainer and a horse stayed al ! is place for foui- days. He gave an account to the trainer, who fiard that it was quite in order, but he had not sufficient money with him. to pay it. His employer would probably give him some when lie went to Hie Geraldine races. Witness was to meet him. at the train, but when witness saw him, ho said he had received only enough money.to cover his expenses at Geraldine. Witness had then posted the account to the owner (defendant), who would not recognise it. Witness had never had trouble in tliis way before, owners having al. ways paid the charges. To Mr North: Sometimes the trainers paid, and. sometimes the owners. He had never had a ease \vherc. an owner who had not attended the races with his horse had paid. Mr North said that it must be evident. from the expenses already in. enrred. that a big principle was involved, and it was of great importance to all the racing people in New Zealand. It might extend to all the own. ers. and might, involve them in some hundreds of pounds. The Magistrate: But surely there have been eases of this kind before? Mr North: No! 1 earn find no similar Counsel quoted authorities on Hie. law of master ami servant, showing that there' was a certain implied authority. The Magistrate: Here is a ease where a horse is taken some hundreds of miles from headquarters, and it is inevitable that there should be some .authority on the part of the trainer to pledge the owner’s credit. Mr North said the point was whether a man had an implied authority to pledge his owner’s credit, particularly in view of the fact that money had been given to liquidate the debt. The Magistrate. You contend then, that the trainer is the servant, and not the agent, of owner? Yes, broadly speaking. Mr Kennedy, for the defendant, said that the relation of master and servant existed. He did not think any of the authorities quoted by the opposing counsel had a bearing on the present case, where there was an implied authority. Judgment was reserved.