CROUPIER CASE

Grey River Argus, 22 September 1932, Page 5

CROUPIER CASE

MR CORRY’S APPEAL Against Judge Herdman’s Decision (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, September 21. A casoi of considerable interest to the racing community came before the Court of Appeal, in the appeal of John Joseph Corry, merchant, Blenheim, from the judgment of Justice Herdman, delivered in Auckland in May. in the a« lion brought by Corry against John Paterson and Janies Paterson merchants, Auckland. Fol. twing its running in the Stead Gold Cup at Riccarton, on the concluding day of the New Zealand Cup meeting in November, the racehorse Croupier was seized as he was leaving the <• iiirso and taken to Auckland. Tho horse was seized bv Paterson Bros, who alleged they were its owners. Corry, in whose name the hors-e had been racing, subsequently issued a writ the Supreme Court against the Pateisons, alleging he and they were parti ers Jin ownership of the horse and :, i its racing, in proportion of half to Ci rry and a quarto,r f 0 each of the I’ateisons. He asked for a declaration as to the existence of the partnership, canc llation of partnership' accounts, and £lOOO damages for seizure of the hors<. The Patersons, in their plead ings, denied the partnership and contend- d they were the absolute owners of tl e horse, that Corry had possession of q from them for purposes of training and aeing, and was to account to them for jts winnings, after deducting exp<" ses incidental to training ai-d racing They further alleged they had not receiv 'd full payment of the winnings due 4 o them and in their counter-claim, asked for a declaration as to the ownership of the horse and for an order that Corry account for the winnings whit h he had received. T'ie action was heard at Auckland in Apr’l, before Justice Herdman. His Honour, after hearing much conflicting evidence, both verbal and written, held that tho Patersons were the owner of the horse, and that Corry was not, as owner, entitled to any share or inten -t in the horse. He found, howeve:, that Corry and Patersons were par ners in the running of the horse in the following shares: —Corry 50 per (••.m.., Patersons 25 .n-r cent. each. He dec oed a dissolution of partnership, am' that accounts be taken by the Rc« istrar of Partnership' dealings. ( I'.ry is now appealing from that decision. Counsel, for appellant, moved for lea e to read, and adduce in evidence: 'I- N'Jtic e of change of owneiship' of hal -share in Croupior, from Corry to th- Pater--.1-s; (2) The form of registration of their jq : nt interests in the hoi se. r :'hes e documents had not been pro dueed in the previous hearing in the Lower Court, at Auckland, but since th q hearing had been discovered by the Secretary of the Racing Conferon :e, amongst the records of the Conference.

Counsel for respondents resisted th-? application, but the Court thought they should be admitted, and they were placed before th e Court. Counsel for appellant submitted that Corry was entitled to claim a halfsharei in the horse, by reason of the gift of him by the Patersons, -when he first received the horse and also by r ason of further arrangements, which t ok place between the parties in Aug ust of the following year. The Pater s ins were selling their stable of horses in January, 1930. Croupier was then a young colt, and not disposed of. Corry was asked by Paterson to take the colt, and do what ho liked with him. H-e took it to> Blenheim, and for right?en months trained and prepared it, at li is own expense. Corry always contended that if the colt proved to be of any valu n , he would give back to the Patersons a share in it. When the colt turned out a success the Patersons denied Corry’s ownership in the horse, and claimed it for their own. Correspondence passed between the p'arties, and in August. 1931, a change of half-interest in the horse from Corry to the Pat-ersons was registered w th th e racing authorities. At that time, the horse had not any race of any great distinction. When Corry first received the horse, it was of vc-ry little value, as its breeding was not popu lar. BREACH OF PARTNERSHIP ALLEGED. WELLINGTON, September 21. In the Corry v. Paterson Appeal Court case, continuing, counsel for the appellant contended that it was not till Patersons learnt of tho horse Croupier’s first classic success, in September of 1931, that they first repudiated the arrangements that were arrived at in August of that year. Independently of the question of the ownership of the horse, there was the partnership as to its running, and therefore the seizure of the horse had amounted to a breach of that partnership, thus entitling Corry to damages. Finally, it was submitted that the Court should direct its attention to the excellent prospects of further success that were shown by Croupier, at the time that it was seized and taken to Auckland. The loss resulting from that seizure should entitle the appellant to substantial damages on that account. RESPONDENTS’ CASE. Counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant’s claim to a half-share in the racehorse Croupier could be based only on a presumed gift or upon a contract. In order to prove the gift, the appellant, Corry, must prove the clear intention on the part of Paterson Bros, to renounce all interest in the horse. The evidence, he said, showed clearly that not only

had the respondents never expressed such an intention, but the appellant, Corry, never believed that a gift of the horse had been made to him. The only evidence on the question as to whether Corry derived any interest in Croupier by the contract with Paterson Bros, was the notice of the change of the ownership of the half share in Croupier from Corry to the Patersons. The respondents, he submitted, were driven to enter into this document by a fear of disqualification by the Racing Conference for not disclosing their ownership in Croupier. That document, he contended, did not, however, stop them from raising the question of the ownership subsequently. As far as the question of damages was concerned, it was submitted that Paterson Bros, had a legal right, either as owners or as co-owners, to seize the horse, as they did. After hearing counsel for the appellant in reply, the Court reserved its decision.