Ownership of Croupier

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 6838, 20 April 1932, Page 7

Ownership of Croupier

SUPREME COURT ACTION. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, April 19. The second stage of the legal proceedings regarding the ownership of the racehorse Croupier, seized at Riccarton last November, bega.;n in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Herdman- to-day. John Joseph Corry, of Blenheim, sued John and James Paterson, merchants, of Auckland, asking for a declaration of ownership, dissolution of partnership and taking of accounts. He also asked that a receiver be appointed and claimed £IOOO for wrongful removal and detention of the horse. The defence is a denial of the partnership, defendants asserting that they had always been- the rightful owners of the horse. They denied that they wrongfully seized it and claimed half the prize money received by Corry from August Ist to November 14th, 1931. They maintained that, possession of tho horse was given Corry in accordance with his promise to look after the horse for them. They asked the Court to declare them the owners of the horse.

Up to August 31st, 1931, Croupier won five races, for which plaintiff was paid approximately £413, less deductions. From August Ist to November 14th, 1931, he won approximately £1225. Hearing is proceeding. The circumstances in which he came into possession of Croupier were described by the plaintiff. He had no intention of buying for himself at Paterson’s sale in January, 1930. Ho thought so little of Croupier at the time that he would have been glad to have given him away instead of taking him home. Paterson thanked witness for coming up and said he would give witness this yearling. Witness ivas not at all keen to take it, but said he would do so, and if it ever turned out any good half of the horse would be Paterson’s. Croupier was in such a bad state when ho got him that it was a long time before the trainer did any good with him. Croupier had always raced in witness’s name. In tho document of August 11, 1931, he was registering a partnership in the horse of 50 per cent to himself and 25 per cent, each to James and John Paterson. Witness said that Croupier had cost him £350 to £4OO before he won his first race at the Christchurch races. In November witness gave Paterson’s agent, Collins, a promissory note for £l5O for tho Patersons.

Within a quarter of an hour the horse was taken away after the Stead Cup. He saw Collins go up to Croupier and try to knock the boy off the horse. Witness went up and protested, but Collins had eight or nine policemen with him to stop witness doing anything. Collins took Croupier away, hot and excited after tho race, on an open lorry. Witness tried to get the Canterbury Jockey Club to "interfere, but the officials w r cre under the impression that the horse wsa seized under a legal warrant. Counsel for defendants: "So it was.” Counsel for plaintiff; "That is for his Honour to say. It looks more like theft.”

In cross-examination, witness said he owed John Paterson 25 per cent, of Croupier’s winnings, but James Paterson’s 25 pCr cent, was wiped out. by other matters outstanding between them. He had not rendered any account to them. Witness said the first letter definitely setting out the 50-50 basis was sent to Paterson in June, 1931. Paterson wrote back immediately, saying lie had never given the horse to witness. This was tho only difference ho had ever had with Paterson. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.