CHEVIOT NEWS.

Kaikoura Star, Volume LII, Issue 33, 26 April 1932, Page 3

CHEVIOT NEWS.

The fortnightlv meeting of the Loyal Cheviot Lodge.' No. 9604, 1.0.0. F., ALU., Ashley District, took place at the Coronation Library on Wednesday evening, Bro. W. R. Alusson, A.G., presiding over a good attendance. The Secretary of the Social Committee reported that there was a small credit balance available in the social fund. Four new members were proposed. The N.G. notified that degree lectures would be given at the next meeting, and several members expressed their intention of taking degrees. Woods’ Great Peppermint Cure First aid for Coughs, Colds. Inuuenza. WHO OWNS CROUPIER? AUCKLAND, April 21. When the Croupier case was resumed Frederick Smith, horse.traincr, formerly acting for defendants, said that Croupier nad always been a nice-look-ing colt. “It is an absolute lie,” cried the witness, when asked about the evidence that the colt was in poor condition. James Paterson, one of the defendants, said he had been half-owner in Croupier with his brother. He never authorised his brother to sell or to give away an interest in Croupier. Herbert Wilson Collins, bush contractor, described how he got possession of Croupier at Christchurch, acting un. dor Messrs Paterson’s instructions. The witness asked Corry for the money owed and the horse. Paterson said that about £6OO was owed by Corry, but Corry worked it out at about £3OO. Corry said he would not give him all that, but he gave him a promissory note for £l5O. Croupier looked very sore and not fit to race before his last race. He (Collins) put a cover on the horse when he got him outside the gate and looked after him well on the way to Auckland. The witness warned Corry before he got the promissory note from him that he had come from Auckland i to get the horse. He thought Corry would give it to him. A demand was made on him in Wellington for the horse, but he refused to give him up. Counsel for the defence said that there was a partnership as far as the stakes were concerned. There was no corroboration, he said, of the plaintiff ’s claim that the horse was originally a gift to him. The partnership document had nothing to do with the horse itself, but only with the running and stakes of the horse. His Honour (Sir Alexander Herdman) said that the difficult question was whether any agreement embraced the horse as well as the winnings. Counsel for the plaintiff said that the joint ownership agreement showed that a definite arrangement had been come to for the sharing of both the horse and the winnings. His Honour reserved his decision.