HASTINGS COURT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 258, 14 October 1932, Page 9

HASTINGS COURT

(Before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M.) CLAIM FOR TRAINING FEES. At the Hastings Magistrate's Court, before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., on Wednesday afternoon Lionel Berry (Mr E. J. W, Hallett) claimed £lBl 12/6 from Hori Tupaea (Mr W, E. Bate) being the amount allegedly due for training fees in connection with horseracing. A counter-claim for £26 8/8 for rent allegedly due was entered. For the plaintiff Mr Hallett said that plaintiff was engaged by the defendant as his horse-trainer. The usual arrangement was for the owner to pay a wage and also 10 per cent, of the winnings, but in this case the arrangement was for plaintiff to be paid £3 per week and in lieu of the 10 per cent, commission he was to be paid the equivalent of dividends at the rate of payments for £2 invested on all wins. Mr Hallett stated that this arrangement would be denied by defandant, and there would be a conflict of evidence. All that the Court was asked to do, however, was to fix a reasonable sum of remuneration plaintiff was eu-' titled to.

In evidence, Berry said that the defendant agreed to pay him £2 worth of winning dividends of the two horses he trained, in addition to £3 a week. The idea was that this arrangement would ‘keep dark” and information about the horses as the bigger the dividend the better it would be for plaintiff. The arrangement applied only in the case of a win. After the Dannevirke meeting the defendant took away his horses. Witness said that £34 had been paid on account and there was another £2O for rent and grazing fees that had to come off the claim.

Under cross-examination plaintiff said that Tupaea was known as a “white man,” being very honest but in this instance he had gone back on his agreement. Witness admitted that he had not always claimed his £2 dividend after each race, but had repeatedly asked for a settlement. Elsie Berry, wife of the plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence of the agreement between plaintiff and defendant. In evidence the defendant stated that the agreement was to pay plaintiff £'3 per week and meet all expenses, and when it was considered the horses had a good chance of winning defendant would put a sum up to £5 on the totalisator on behalf of plaintiff. This was done repeatedly and more often than not the bet went west and defendant himself faced this loss. Wages and expenses were regularly paid and never was any claim made by plaintiff for the dividends. Defendant said he was not racing his horses now because he could not afford to run them. Witness said that he had paid out from £BO, to £lOO on bets for plaintiff and plaintiff had received in return from £5O to £6O. Witness said that he engaged plaintiff at his (defendant’s) iwuse at Opapa, and not at plaintiff’s mouse.

Mrs Tupaea gave a similar version of the agreement.

His Worship, in giving judgment, reviewed the evidence and said that the fact that no claim was previously made by plaintiff suggested that the agreement was not as plaintiff contended. Had it been so then no doubt plaintiff would have pressed his claims. There was no doubt that a certain amount was due for wages, and His Worship said that under the circumstances he would enter judgment for the plaintiff for £l5 with costs £4 7/-. In the counter-claim judgment was entered in favour of Tupaea for £2O with costs £3 5/-.