TRAINERS’CLAIM

Grey River Argus, 28 March 1928, Page 8

TRAINERS’CLAIM

UPHELD BY S.M. For Percentage of Winnings “There is no doubt that if a trainer is getting the mere pay for training horses there is not so much induce ment for winning as if he gets a percentage. of the stake money.” These remarks were made by Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when Thomas Doiinellan and Joseph Shannahan, represented by Mr F. 11. Dougan claimed tHe sum of £lB 6s from John Sydney Bar- 1 ton (Mr W. Joyce), the sum claimed being 10 per cent of the winnings 0f defendant’s horse, Buoyant, while twing trained by plaintiffs. The defence’ was that. Barton had not agreed to pay 10 per cent of the winnings when the horse was taken over by plaintiffs. Mr Dougan said that plaintiffs had agreed somewhere about last November to train the horse Buoyant for Barton, the agreement being that they receive £2 10s a. week plus 10 per cent of the stake winnings. The arrangements had been carried out by defendant except that ho had not. paid the 10 per cent of the stakes. The horse had won one race at Hokitika and a first and second at Greymouth the stakes won totalling £lB3. Thomas Donnellan gave evidence that with Joseph Shannahan he carried on business as a horse trainer. He had met Barton at Rangiora at the race meeting held there on Labour Day. Witness mentioned to defendant that the racehorse Buoyant was under offer for £2OO. The latter said that if they could get the horse for £l5O for him ho would give them the horse to train, the agreement being that plaintiffs receive £2 10s a week and 10 per cent of all stakes won. Barton, Shannahan and himself were present when the terms were made. The horse. was bought for £l5O and he and his partner then took charge of the horse. At that time plaintiffs had their training quarters in Christchurch, but on November 15 they came to Greymouth. All payments had been made with the exception of the percentage.

To Mr Joyce.—Arrangements as to the buying of Buoyant and terms of training had been made at Rangiora. At the request of defendant witness had sent wires to the owner of the horse, Doyle who wanted f 150 and £lOO out of the first win. Eventually the horse was purchased for £l5O. There had been no arrangements made at Delargey’s Hotel. Defendant had given witness the cheque in the Empire Ho tel. In 1925 witness had trained Lytup for defendant for one month, receiving £3 a week and 10 per .cent. of the stake earnings, which amounted to £1 4s for a third. He wouldn’t have taken the horse on any other terms. Buoyant had been raced at Hokitika on December 26 and 27, where it had won one race to the value of £63. Barton had paid the expenses and also the training fees out of his pocket on December 28 at the Empire Hotel. Mr Shannahan had made out a bill for expenses to Hokitika and training fees, but made no mention of the 10 per cent because Barton had said Buoyant: would get another race at, Greymouth, and plaintiffs could collect all the. percentages on the stake winnings then. Barton had sent for the horse shortly after the Coast, meetings. They had sent in their account after the Reefton m eting. On January 25 they sent another account. They made out their accounts every month.

Mr Joyce:—Here’s a bill for three week’s training, which was sent after the horse had been taken away. Witness said that they made their accounts out every four weeks, not for the end of every month. To Mr Doogan witness said that he hjid trained a number of horses during the past ton years. His charges had always been £3 a week and 10 per cent of the winnings until November last when he had reduced them to £2 10s and 10 per cent. of the stake winnings. He had never yet trained a horse without receiving 10 per rent of the earnings. With regard to the account in question his partner had made an error at first putting Buoyant’s winnings as £193 instead of £lB3, £6O at Hokitika, and £123 at Greymouth. IJe never put in an account for the percept,ages until the meetings were over. In reply to a question from the S.M. as to outside trainers’ charges witness instanced F. E. Jones who charged £3 a week and 10 per cent on stake winnings. He mentioned that some trainers get J. 5 per cent in which case it has to be registered. Mr Doogan. —I might state that under the rules of racing anything over 10 per cent has to be registered. This, shows that 10 per cent is the usual thing. Joseph Sljannalian corroborated Thomas Donnellan’s evidence anent the purchasing of Buoyant and the ami the terms on which his partner and himself 'were to train it. He said it was customary for trainers to receive 10 per cent of the winnings. Mr Joyce remarked that Ellis and Longley, both well-known trainers did not charge 10 per cent of the winnings. In reply to a question from Mr Joyce witness said.that they asked Barton to leave Buoyant in their hands as they wanted it. Mr Joyce said that it could be seen from correspondence which had passed between the parties there was no valid reason why the plaintiffs should charge 10 per cent on the stake earnings. The fact that plaintiffs did not include the 10 per cent in their account to defendant after • the Hokitika meeting went far to substantiate Barton’s statement that there had been no agreement as to plaintiffs receiving 10 per cent, The next salient fact was that when Barton took the horse away plaintiffs wanted to retain charge of it, but as soon as it was taken from them, an account had been sent including the 10 per cent. At the time the horse was bought Barton, as he would presently testify to, had made arrangements to pay £2 10s and no percentage. •John Sydney Barton, brewery manager, in evidence said that he remembered seeing plaintiffs at liangiora where the question cropped up as to the purchase of a race horse. Buoyant’s name was mentioned and in consequence Donnellan at witness’s instigation wired Palmerston Noijth to Doyle, owner of Buoyant and after negotiations the horse had been sold to him for £l5O. He had given the horse to plaintiffs to train in fairness to them as they had assisted in purchasing the horse. In 1925 he had sent a mare, Lytup, over to Donnellan and Shajinahan. No arrangements had been made in connection with the mare, but they charged him £3 a week and 10 per cent of the stake earnings. Having this in mind on this occasion he met Dqiinellan and the latter told him the

charge was £2 10s a week, saying that although his former charge was £3 he had t-o fall in line with other Riecarton trainers. Witness said that he came over to the Coast at Xmas time and had received an account which he paid by cheque. There was nothing relating to the 10 per cent on the account otherwise he would have taken his horse away. His own trainer and jockey were over and not being satisfied with the jockey plaintiffs had put up he put his own up with better results. He went away to Christchurch on the Monday after having gone to Itcefton on the Saturday. He took the word of plaintiffs that the horse was well but he saw when it came to Christchurch that it was not. Seven days after the arrival of the horse he received an account including the 10 per cent. This latter he would not pay. It was usually left to the discretion of the owners as to the reimbursement given to the trainer after a win. Mr Doogan.—How many horses have you at present? Defendant.—At the moment I have three. Mr Doogan.—Not quite as many as Sir George Clifford. Defendant.—There’s no need to be sarcastic, Mr Doogan. To Mr Doogan defendant emphatically denied offering Donnellan £l2 in Chrjstchurch in settlement of the claim. If a trainer could not make a Jiving without the percentage he should got out of the business. Lee rode Buoyant on the first day at Hokitika, but oh ..the second day Shaw was up and the horse won. Shaw also rode it the first day at Greymouth and it won, but Lee rode it the second and third day. Mr Doogan.—l don’t like meutioiug it, but when you were in business in Greymouth did you not have trouble with a considerable number of accounts? Defendant.—l had the usual number •)f ups and downs, but did nothing that was not honourable. I don’t see how that can alter the case. Mr Doogan.—Neither does your remark about the condition in which the horse was returned to you. Mr Joyce.—You say you absolutely refused to pay plaintiffs 10 per cent. D e fend ant.—Y e s. To the S.M 7 defendant said he had horses for a good while. Ellis, Longley, Holmes and Pearson had trained his horses for £2 10s a week. It was usual to put something on the machine for the trainer. The S. M.—You say you won £lB3 on the Coast. Didn’t it occur to you to give these men something? Defendant replied that his expenses were very heavy. The S.M.— Have you any special reason for not paying that little extra? Defendant.—lt was not done in Riccarton. The S.M. summing up said it was a case of oath against oath. Plaintiffs’ evidence was given quite frankly and was unaltered under cross-examniation. evidence went to support the fact that a percentage was customary. The rules of racing provided for a percentage. Defendant admitted that he gave his Christchurch trainers a gratuity, but gave none to plaintiffs. He gave judgment for plaintiffs for the amount involved with Court costs £1 10s and J solicitor’s fee. £2 12s. Witnesses ex-* ponses were not claimed by plaintiffs.