OWNERSHIP OF MARE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 201, 15 July 1936, Page 2

OWNERSHIP OF MARE

QUEEN OF SONG CASE,

HEARING AT DUNEDIN

Per Press Association. DUNEDIN, July 14. The ownership of Queen of Song, one of the best racing mares in the Dominion and the winner this season I of several important races, is involved I in a case which was commenced in I the Supreme Court this morning and is likely to last for several days. Plaintiff is Marion Beale, of Green Island, and defendants are Thomas Edwin Hide, a farmer, of Seadown, and Patrick Thomas Hogan, a horse trainer, of AVashdyke. Plaintiff alleges that by an agreement on Decomber 7, 1934, between her and Hide defendant leased the mare to her till August 1, 1935, also granting her right of purchase for £l5O on or before that date; that in August she, by telegram- and letter, exercised her purchase right, but that Hide refused a specific performance of contract. In consequence plaintiff had lost the profit she would have made by racing the mare. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of contract or the sum of £BSO as damages. Judgment is also sought for £1043 as further damages, and from Hogan £IOOO if possession is not given. The statement of defence, while denying that there was ail agreement, contended that if one was entered into it was either rescinded mutually or repudiated by plaintiff; further, that if tho agreement granted a purchase right it was not exercised within the time ' specified. Mr Solomon (for plaintiff) stated that the mare was sold to Hogan, who now had possession, and it was submitted that when Hogan purchased tho mare he was aware of the steps taken by plaintiff to exercise her purchase right. As it was not desired to graze tho mare at Taieri owing to danger of worms it was decided to ask Hide to graze it at Seadown, and the i allegation that the sending of the mare !to Seadown was a rescission of the ; lease was denied. Difficult and irn- ! portant law questions were involved ! which would he argued later. I Mr Thomas (Christchurch) appears | for Hide and Air Donnelly (Christj church) for Hogan. The first witness. John Arthur Beale, ! husband of plaintiff, stated that on j one occasion Shaw, a AVingatui train- ! or, told him that a man named Twcedie i wanted to buy the mare for £l9O. | The sale was agreed to, Twcedie giy- ! ing a cheque, but later Twcedie did 1 not like the deal and received the money hack. Mr Donnelly: At the time you exorcised the option you resold the mare to Tweedie at a profit of £4O? AA'itness: Yes.

So that, if the mare had been delivered to you at the beginning of ' August, all you and your wife would have got was £4o?—Yes. | Is it not a fact that you simply waited to see how the marc turned out before you made a claim?—No. | AA'hy did you not turn her over for £4o?—Because she was sore. At the . time Tweedie had more money than j mo and could afford to take the risk. Beale said he obtained a partnerI ship in the lease of Queen of Song with a man named Hunter. The latter and witness had a disagieement, and witness’s wife purchased tho lease, giving Hunter £6O. He saw Mr Hill, ! secretary of tho Dunedin Jockey Club, to have the lease put in order. Mr Hill had a document prepared and his wife called at Mr Hill’s office to sign. (About February of last year Hide, at the invitation of witness, came to stay with him. AA'itness mentioned to Hide that his wife intended to exercise the right of purchase in the lease. The mare was sore after the Cromwell races, and it was decided to turn her out. AA’itness got into communication with Hide and asked him if.he would take'the mare and graze her a.t Seadown. Hide replied that he would be only too pleased, and told him to consign the mare to Seadown. No instructions were given that the mare was to bo trained. She was sore, and witness told Hide so oyer tho telephone. There was no discussion between witness and Hide as to his wife giving up any interest in Queen of Song. AA’itness detailed communications made with Hide and said his wife had . always been ready and willing to complete the contract. Had witness had Queen of Song he would have entered her in races similar to those in which , Hogan had raced her. Mr Donnelly further cross-examined , witness. . . ; How did you describe the condition of tho mare when you first rang up , Hide?— l said that she was very sore , and that I did not feel inclined to go on with her as it might ruin her. AVliat did you mean when you said , you did not'feel inclined to go on with her?— l was afraid I might ruin her. Did you in February tell Hide that , you could not afford to buy the mare? —I did not. PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE. Plaintiff, Marion Bea.le, said that she owned a one-third interest in the i Green Island Hotel, of which she was the lessee. She first became interested i in Queen of Song when she and her husband' leased the mare from Mr Smith, and at that time a man-named Hunter was also interested m the lease. AA’itness went on to corroborate i her husband’s evidence regarding the return of the mare from Cromwell races and the reason for sending her : to Seadown. . . AA’itness detailed a discussion she i had had with her husband with regard ; to exercising her notion to purchase ; the mare and identified a telegram dispatched to Hide informing him that she intended to do this as one sent bv ber on August 1 and a cheque for £l5O in favour of Hide as one she had signed on July 31. Leslie Gerald Hill, secretary ot the , Dunedin Jockey Club, said that he i was fully acquainted with the procedure in the ease of the trausier or lease of a racehorse. AA’itness produced a list of Queen of Song’s performances and expressed the opinion that , in view of these anyone prepared to spend money would be prepared to vivo £IOOO for her. He had prepared , the necessarv documents as between Hide and Airs Beale. He was nndei the impression that. Airs Beale had signed these in bis presence and lie had forwarded them to Hide foi his , signature. Beale had rung him up on the evening of July 30. telling lum that he had that night posted a , cheque for £l5O. and requested him to take the necessary steps with regard to the purchase.. Oil the following morning Beale called on him and witness thereupon wrote to Hide. Following a reply from Hide Beale again camo to see witness and talked ot voiri" to a solicitor. AA itness. however, explained that Hide’s refusal to sum , tho transfer was probable due to his being under a misapprehension that the lease was up on July 31 instead of on August 1, and suggested that lie ; should again communicate with Hide. Beale agreed, but when the reply was received from Hide he said he was going to the Grand National meeting and would go into the matter when no came back. . At this stage the hearing was adjourned until to-niorrpw morning. j;