DISPUTE OVER TROTTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19119, 10 September 1925, Page 6

DISPUTE OVER TROTTER.

SUPREME COURT ACTION. THE HORSE ROTO MANUKA. [BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Wednesday. A dispute concerning the trotting stallion Roto Manuka was ventilated in the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day, when Albert Edward Wight, farmer, of Te Aroha (Mr. Finlay), sought to recover from Stanly McConochie, carrier, Te Aroha (Mr. McLiver), the sum of £261 ss, alleged to be due on a promissory note. Counsel stated that a bill of salfl for £l5O was given by the original owner, Stewart, to plaintiff in February, 1921. On April 10, 1925, Roto Manuka was sold to defendant, and a promissory note was given by Stewart, the bill of sale having been released. Stewart then bought a new horse, Advance, which was bought with plaintiff's consent for £250.' On June 11, 1924, Stewart having secured Advance, a bill of sale was given by him for £250 to plaintiff, who guaranteed his overdraft. In September, 1924, an exchange was arranged between Stewart and defendant, Stewart taking back Roto Manuka and receiving £SO from defendant, for which he handed Advance to defendant. A new bill of sale was executed in September, 1924, to defendant oyer Roto Manuka, and it was on this instrument the claim was made.

The defence was that the promissory note was obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation by plaintiff, who said the horse was a certain sire.

After hearing a great deal of evidence His Honor said he preferred to believe plaintiff's story. He gave judgment for plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs. '