RACING REVELATIONS

Manawatu Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 7979, 20 May 1904, Page 3

RACING REVELATIONS

The Kalmea Cuse.

Rangimoe's History.

In the Supreme Court yesterday before the Chief Justice the case of W. Homes, racehorse trainer, v. Ronald Cameron, stockman, was commenced.

Mr U. Lou^hnan appoared for plaintiff and Mr L. Cohen for defendant.

Plaintiff and defendant, for some time prior to February 3, 1904, had been carrying on business at Bulls under a verbid agreement that they should train and raco a thoroughbred racehorse named Rangimoe. Disputes and differences had arisen between them, it was stated, and on February 3rd plaintiff, by notice in writing, dissolved the partnership. The nest day, it was alleged, defendant, against the will of plaintiff, forcibly took possession of Rangimoe, then in Homes' possession, and had threatened to soil the horse. The only assets of the co-partnership consisted of the horse Rangimoe, said to be of great value, and £35, which was in the hands of the Pahiatua Racing Club. The copartnership was alleged to be large'y indebted to plaintiff for money advanced, and partly for the training of the horse. If ihe partnership was held to bo not determined by the notice sent on February 3rd, then plaintiff desired to have the partnership dissolved by order of the Court, and was ready and willing to bear his share of the debts and obligations, and desired to have the accounts of the partnership taken by the Court and have the affairs wound up, and also that a writ of injunction be issued restraining defendant from selling Rangimoe, and from doing any matter or thing relating to the partnership business until further order of tho Court.

In the defence filed defendant declared that the only agreemeut, verbal or otherwise, between the parties was an agreement that plaintiff should train and race Rangimoe for defendant at a remuneration of £2 per week and racing disbursements. He admitted receivings notice signed by plaintiff purporting to dissolve an alleged partnership. On February 4th defendant, it wai stated, terminated the agreement as to training and racing Rangimoe, tendered plaintiff the amount duo to him, and took the horse to his own stables. And for a further defence, defendant claimed that he purchased Rangimoe from John Baldwin for £100, and employed plaintiff to train and race it. Defendant was informed that plaintiff held a receipt signed by John Baldwin for £100, purporting to be the purchase money for Rangimoe, and defendant said such receipt was obtained by plaintiff by means of a false and fraudulent representation that plaintiff and defendant were partners.

Plaintiff went into the box and deposed to entering into a verbal agreement with defendants and they were to buy Rangimoe jointly for dEIOO. The horse was raced in Mr Cameron's name. In reply to His Honor, witness said hia name should have been included, but he left it to Mr Cameron.

In reply to a question from His Honor, Mr Cohen said this kind of thing was provided against in the Bules of Eacing, and an owner or partner was liable to be warned off the course for racing a horse without having his name registered.

Continuing, witness said subsequent to the Pahiatua races Cameron took the horse from one of defendants stable boys on the Bulls' racecourse.

Cross-examined, witness said he had held a trainer's license without intermission, except on one occasion, for eleven years.

Wasn't that intermission just after the aotorious Kalmea case ? —Thoyear after.

On that occasion you bad three horses in the race, one belonging to Mr McDonald ; did he hot take his horse away immediately after that race ?—No; it was some months after.

Did you win anything over Kalmea ? —No.

Nor any of your friends or con< nections ?—No. "

Will you swear that you are no better off as the result of Ealmea's win • that you made no profit from it at all ?— Yes, I do.

Why did you not apply for your license after that; wasn't it because you received an intimation that you had better not apply, as it would not be granted ?—No, it was not. I did applv, but the application was held over for a month.

Witness added that he did not take out a license that year, because he was not training anybody else's horses.

Continuing, witness said Cameron did not get half the stakes won, because he did not pay the training fcee.

Counsel proceeded to submit Homes to a severe cross-examination in regard to the running of Rangimoe. Waß the horse trying to win at Foxton ? asked Mr Cohen. Yes, he was.

Well, I shall bring as a witness the jockey who rode the horse, and he will say that you instructed him not to win ! If he says that, will you say he is lying ? Yes, he will be lying. Cameron pun up Jenkins to rido at Pahiatua, didn't ho ?—Yes.

And didn't you protest strongly against Jenkins riding ?—I did protest, because I bad told my jockey McAleer that he was to ride.

Did you instruct Jenkins not to win?—No, I told him to follow the instructions given by Cameron on the first day.

Jenkins will swear that when he was going to the post you told him "never to be in the race at all." Do you say he will be lying ?—Yes, it's lying. \ After Rangimoe had won the second day at Pahiatua, did not Mr Cameron tell you he suspected you had been pulling his horse at Foxton and Pahiatua?—No, he never did.

How do you account for the horse whining a mile race at Pahiatua on the second day amongst good horses, when it couldn't win over five furlongs, with much poorer horses competing, at Foxton ?—lt wasn't a mile ; it was seven furlongs.

Well, then, seven furlongs?—Wei), he was meeting good horses that were tired.

Did you tell Cameron the horse had never gone a mile, and couldn't ?—No, I did not; I had never tried him over a mile.

After Rangimoe had won on the second day at Pahiatua, didn't Cameron say to you that he was tired of this racing and swindling ?—No, he didn't. Counsel questioned witness with a view to showing that Cameron was very excited and angry after Kangitnoe had won. His Honor was surprised.

" I don't understand," he said. "Why should he be angry when his horse had won ?"

Mr Cohen explained. " The form had been given away to the public and he had been kept in the dark, and thus robbed of the chance of making a 'pot'." J. Goodall, secretary to the Rangitikei Racing Club, and Hugh McArtney, hotelkeeper, Palmerston, were called to state that they understood Homes and Cameron were in partnership. The latter stated that Cameron told him that he and Homes had the horse in partnership.

Cross-examined, McArtney said he had known Homes for a number of years.

Have you ever executed any comrnis-, gionß for Homes ?—Never. Nor ever made a bet for him ?—No. Have you never had any intimation from him as to the horses in his stable —any " good things'?" —I don't know about good things; I might have put a sovereign on occasionally, on a tip. What, a sovereign ! Do you actually mean to say you have put as much as a sovereign on ? int uired Mr Cohen sarcastically. I didn't come here to be made a fool of. You asked me, and I've told you. Now, come, Mr McArtney, haven't you bet in hundreds of pounds with Homes ?—No, never. You don't do extensive betting, and never have ?—Not with my own money. For other people you have'? —I have. But not for Mr Homes ?—No. Were you in the Kalmea incident ?— Well, I don't know what you mean. Come, now, answer me straight. Your Honor, has this any bearing on the case ? asked witness.

His Honor : Yes, I think it has,

Mr Cohen: Did you back Kalmea ?— No, I didn't.

Were you in this Kalmea business ? — I didn't back anything in the race, for myself.

Did you back for Mr Homes ?—No,

But were you not in the swim ?—I don't know what you metn by " the Bwini."

Did the persons for whom you backed lose money ?—Yes, as far as I know.

At this stage the Court adjourned till this morning.