DUKE OF HAMILTON v. ROBINSON.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume II, Issue 232, 3 October 1867, Page 2

DUKE OF HAMILTON v. ROBINSON.

The following report of this case, heard in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, from tho Londou Times of the 12th July, will be interesting to many of our readers : —

This was a motion to dissolve the injunction obtained exparte on the 27th June by the Duke of Hamilton restraining the defendant, Mr William Robinson, who is described in the bill as a gentleman who had for many years been engaged in breeding and training thoroughbred horses for the purpose of racing, and in dealing in racehorses, and as a man of large experience in racing matters, from continuing an action of Robinson v. Duke of Hamilton in the Queen's Bench for £13,412 17s on two bills of exchange accepted bythe Duke It appeared that on the 31st .May 1866* 7

the Duke, who had only borne of age two months previously, entered into an agreement with the defendant for the purchase of 14 horses with their engagements, the engagements to commence the first day of Ascot, for the .sum of £8000, for which the Duke was to give his acceptauce dated the lst May 1866, payable 12 months after date. The horses were Eltham, Muezzin, Miss Pottie, Weddiug Peal, Maori Chief, Nailer, Huruxin, Heartbreakers, Ailesbury, Archemage, Pioneer, Middlepark, Ilighlaud Sister, and Kinglake. It was further agreed tbat Mr Robinson should advance the Duke a sura of £4000, but this £4000 was to consist partly of a sum of £2000 to be paid in respect of the forfeits due aud accruing due on the horses for the engagements for which they had been entered, and partly of a sum of £2000, which was the only sum actually advanced to the Duke. The terms were afterwards slightly varied, and the Duke gave Mr Robinson two bills bearing the date originally fixed, one for £10,000 beiug for the price of the horses for the forfeits; and the second for 3,400/, being for the 2,000/ advanced and for the interest on both bills. The horses were delivered on the 4th of June to the Duke's trainer; but on being shortly afterwards inspected by Mr Fothergill Rowlands, who had the management of the Duke's stud, he at once reported that they were of little or no value; that some of them were altogether unsound, and that others were unfit for racing purposes. Upon this report Mr Rowlands was directed by the Duke to call upon Mr Robinson, and to request hitn to take them back, offering, at the same time, to give any reasonable compensation. Mr Robinson refused to accede to the proposal. In June the Duke heard that Mr Robinson had left England for New Zealand, and alleges that he was thus prevented from returning the horses, which, during the autumn of 1866 and the spring of 1867, were run in the races for which they had been previously engaged. Mr Robinson did not, however, leave England until October, and, singularly enough, was, without the Duke's knowledge, for some time residing in the same hotel as the Duke. Nothing further passed until the 15th of May, 1867j when the Duke was served with a writ for 13,412/ 17s, the amount of f the bills, interest and costs; and on the 27th cf May he obtained liberty to defend the action upon paying 4,000/ into court. The Duke then filed this bill to restrain the defendant from proceeding further with the action, and on the 27th of June obtained 'an injunction 'exparte.' Mr Bacon (with him Mr Lindley and Mr W. Murray, of the Common Law Bar) moved to dissolve the injunction on the ground that there was no evidence of fraud; that the horses were extremely valuable, one of them, Eltham, having won the Gold Cup at Ascot in 1865; that the Duke had sold two borses and had run races with some of the others. Mr Dickinson and Mr Brooksbank contended that, although the horses had been run in upwards of 30 races, only two had been won, in which the stakes were unimportant, and no valuable horses had competed. That the horses were purchased in reliance upon the defendant's representations, and that, with the exception of two, they had not even been examined before the purchase. Finally, that the defendant being in New Zealand, and out of the jurisdiction of the Court, the injunction ought to be continued until the hearing of the cause, or that it ought at all events to he continued on the balance of the money heing paid into Court.

The Vice-Chancellor, without^ calling for a reply, dissolved the injunction, and dii ected the costs to be costs in the cause.