OWNERSHIP OF A RACEHORSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16560, 8 June 1917, Page 6

OWNERSHIP OF A RACEHORSE.

CIVIL ACTION DECIDED.

[bt telegraph.— association.] WELLINGTON. Thursday An action For specific 'performance in connection with the alleged sale of a racehorse was heard at tho Supremo Court to-day before Mr. Justice Chapman, the plaintiff being James McLaughlin, horse trainc ', of Trentham, and defendant, Joseph Grant, fanner, of Manakau. The statement of claim set out that in a memorandum dated February 8, 1917, defendant, in consideration of the payment of £1, placed-undor offer to tho_plaintiff until 5 jj.m. on February 13 the racehorse Waimatao for £525. Defendant affixed the signature of "M. Williams" to the memorandum, and at' the time the plaintiff understood the signature to be genuine, and the name "Williams," either the defendant's true- name or assumed name in which he owned and raced tho horse. Plaintiff acceptod tho defendant's offer by telegram before the time mentioned, and tendered defendant £525, the balance of the purchase money, and applied to the defendant specifically to perform tho agreement. This the defendant refused to do. The Court was asked to order defendant to specifically perform the agreement. The plaintiff" also claimed £500 damages against the defendant for wrongfully withholding the delivery of the I horse.

The defendant admitted that ho gave the memorandum, but denied receiving the consideration of £1. All the allegations of the statement of claim were denied except that in which tho defendant admitted that he signed the document " M. Williams." Plaintiff knew that tho name " Williams " wag not defendant's true or assumed name in which he owned and raced the horse. Plaintiff also knew that defendant did not own and had not raced the horse. The main point at dispute concerned the real ownership of tho norse. Mat Williams, horse trainer, stated that he owned the horse Waimatao, and had given Grant authority to sell it only up to a certain date.

His Honor in giving judgment said that if any action lay against Grant it was for a breach of warrant. He felt inclined to believe the ovidence of Williams, and could not find there was proof of fraud in. the preparation of the document, and perjury. If the ovidence for the defence was true, Grant had overstepped his authority and His Honor could not find for the plaintiff in the face of the evidence. Judgment was given for the defendant. With costs. '