RACEHORSE CROUPIER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21162, 20 April 1932, Page 12

RACEHORSE CROUPIER.

OWNERSHIP DISPUTED. HIVAL CLAIMANTS IN COURT. ACTION FOR £IOOO DAMAGES. } ' SEIZURE AT CHRISTCHURCH. The legal action concerning the ownership of the brilliant three vear-old racehorse Croupier was opened before Mr. Justice Hcrdman in the Supremo Court yesterday. The rival claimants aro John Joseph Corrv, of Blenheim, and John and' James Patcrson, of Auckland. Croupier was bred in Auckland by the Paterson brothers, but has done all his racing under the colours of Corrv. On t;(ie last day of the Canterbury Jockey Club's- meeting on November 14 last, Croupier was seized on behalf of the Patersons after running third in the G. G. Stead Cup, and brought to Auckland. In December Corry applied to the Supreme Court in Auckland for the appointment of an interim receiver and manager to tako charge of Croupier until ownership had been determined. On being assured that it was not proposed to race the horso in the meantime, Mr. Justice Reed refused to appoint a receiver.' The plaintiff, Corry, claimed that in January, 1930, the defendants Faterson gave to him the yearling Croupier and that it / was in his possession and control* 5 from March 13, 3930, until its neizure last November. In August, 1931, the plaintiff and defendants became partners in Croupier, each being entitled to u half share. The plaintiff asked for an order that a partnership existed and for sin order for its dissolution, that accounts be taken and a receiver appointed and i'or £IOOO damages for alleged wrongful removal and detention.

Defendants' Counterclaim. The defendants contended that possesion was given to Corry in accordance with a promise to look after it for the defendants, and they denied that it had been wrongfully seized. They denied that a partnership existed and said they were und always had been owners-of-Croupier. Up to August 31, 1931, Croupier won Jive races, for . which the racing clubs paid plaintiff approximately £413, less deductions. From August to November. 14, 1931, the horse- won stakes approximately worth £1225. The defendants counter-claimed for £413 and for half the payments from August 1 onward. They.-asked for a declaration that they were sole owners of Croupier and an order for the taking of accounts between the parties. Counsel for plaintiff said that in January, 1930, the defendants held a clearing sale of their stock, and enlisted C'orry's assistance at the sale. On behalf of the defendants Corry bought some of their stock of a total value of £415, and he also bid for some others. Corry went to Auckland at considerable expense to do a sportsmanlike thing for the Pateriions, and although he was offered a considerable advance on one of the horses he did .not take advantage of tl>is. The 3?atersons recognised this and asked Corry to take as a gift this Surveyor yearling, afterwards named Croupier. Condition of Horse. It was then a poor-conditioned, ill-Itafcked-after yearling, said counsel. Croupier arrived at Blenheim on March !13. / He was nominated the following 'fear in Corry's name as owner. It was an offence under the rules of racing punishable by disqualification to run a jiiorse in the name of anyone who had not at least a 50 per cent, interest in it.

Croupier frst ran at Nelson in May, U931. with some success, and afterwards lit Blenheim, where he won two races. A sharp divergence of opinion between t,he parties became apparent soon after, and the Pater sons denied that they had ever given Croupier to Corry. contended that it was his horse entirely, and that the profits were to be shared equally between them. Counsel submitted that there were IShree questions for the Court. Was Corrv entitled to half ownership of the .'horse ? Were the parties entitled to 50 per cent, each in the profits of the running Of the horse, or liable to losses, if any ? What damages, if any, had been incurred by the illegal action of the defendants ?

Counsel said tliat on September 17, 1931, Croupier won the Wanganui Guineas ■of £SOO, a race which often gave indication ■of a horse of great promise.

His Honor: Did defendants share in iliiat ?

Counsel" for Plaintiff: Oh yes. Counsel for Defendants: Oh no. We have received nothing. Counsel for plaintiff said the share had been credited to defendants. Counsel for Defendants: We have never had a statement at all. Counsel for Plaintiff: You could have Jhad it. Counsel for Defendants: We have been firing for it. Form of Croupier. Referring to his final appearances at the Canterbury Jockey Club's November Meeting counsel said Croupier was obviously in liplendid form, and it was nonsense to liuggest that he had been over-raced. Croupier was afterwards seized in a very highhanded and arbitrary manner. It was in some extraordinary way assumed that Patersons' agent, Collins, had some right or authority to take charge of him, but he had none. The effect of this taking ■was of a very damaging character in many ways. There was an undoubted loss of probable earnings in the races for ■which the horse was entered. Plaintiff had suggested entering the horse in the name of a trustee until ownership was determined, but defendants rejected {his. Thomas Reginald George, private trainer to the plaintiff, said lie had been familiar with a number of horses sired bv Snr Ycyor. Croupier and another Surveyor yearling that came 'into his hands in March, 1930. were both light and in poor condition. Witness took them in hand, and Croupier was nominated for classic races in June, 1930. Croupier was not ready to race until Mav, 1931, when ho pot a third and a first at. Nelson. At Blenheim later ho won the main race each day. He had other successes at Christchurch, Wanganui, Avondale, Auckland, Wellngtori and Christchurch. He was in tip-top condition in November, arid was quite fit tn undertake the remainder of his programme, which included important 1 races in Auckland. lie had won eight tim<~s in 15 starts. Evidence of Plaintiff. Considering the way Croupier was taken off the racecourse witness would not be surprised if the horse was suffering from anything when lie got to Auckland. It was ridiculous to say he was wobbling after liis last race at. Christeliurch. The circumstances in which he came into possession of Croupier were described by the plaintiff. lie had no intention of buying for himself at Patersons' sale in January, 1930. He thought so little of Croupier at the time flint he would hivo been very glad to have given him away instead of taking him home. Paterson thanked witness for coming up, and caid he would give witness this yearling. Witness was not at all keen to take it, but, said he would take it, and if it ever turned out any good half of the horse iwould be Patersons'. After Croupier had race«d at Avondale John Paterson said the trainer, George, •kould not- have raced him there at all

considering the heavy condition of the ground. Witness said, "Why didn't you stop him? You are half-owner of him?" George wa! at the head of the winning trainers' list last year, and was again at the head of it this year. Croupier was in such a bad state when he got him that it was a long time before George did any good with him. Croupier had always raced in witness' name. In the document Af August 11, 1931, he Wf.s registering a partnership in tho horse, per cent, to himself and 25 per cent, each to Jaincs and John Patcrsou. The partnership was in tho horse himself and everything belonging to him. Oomment by Judge. "These people seoin almost to have trot together at one time," said His Honor, referring to the correspondence. Counsel lor Plaintiff: We suggest that they did. His Honor: It seems to mo so stupid that they have not got together and settled this. business. Continuirg, witness said Croupier had cost him between £350 and £4OO before he won h s first race. At the Christchurch racus in November witness Rave Patersons' agent, Collins, a promissory note for £350 for tho Patersons. Within a quarter oT an hour the horse was taken. After the Stead Cup he saw Collins go up <o Croupier and try to knock the boy off th e 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 the race on an open lorry. Witness tried to get tho Canterbury Jockey Club to interfere, but the ofliciah were under tho impression that tho horso had been seized under legal warrant. Counsel for Defendants: So it was. Counsel :or Plaintiff: That is for His Hmior to say. Tt looks more like theft. Witness said he was confident Croupier would havo been able to fulfil his Auckland, Fcilding, Canterbury and Wellington engagements in which he had excellent chances. Question of Accounts. In cross examination, witness said he owed John Patcrson 25 per cent, of Croupier's winnings, but Jamos Paterson's 25 per cent, was wiped out by other matters outstanding between thein. He had not rendered any account to them.

Counsel for defendants: If you camo lo Auckland solely for the sale, which took place on Friday, why was it necessary for you to stay until Tuesday. His Honor (to counsel): You forget the irresistible charm of Auckland.

Witness agreed that in a letter of February 26, 1330, Paterson distinctly claimed that the colt, afterwards called Croupier, was his and expressed a high opinion of it as a likely winning two-year-old. Witness replied: "I will look after your yearling for you, I will charge you plenty for him when your ship comes home and when he wins. In the meantime that can stand over."

Counsel for Defendant: Why are you going to charge Mr. Paterson for you training your own horse? Witness: That was a figure of speech. They gave me the horse, and I always intended that they should have a halfshare in it,

Witness said the first letter definitely setting out the fifth-fifty basis was sent to Paterson in June, 1931. Paterson wrote back immediately saying that he had never given the horse to witness. This was the only difference he had ever had with Paterson.

Witness was asked to explain why when Pate::son denied that he had given the horse, he replied, "I think you did in a meaiure." He explained that he referred to the fact that he intended to share equa ly with Paterson if the horse proved good. If the horse had not been given to him and he had allowed it to race in hiii name it would have been a most serious thing for him. He had suggested to Paterson in a letter, as an alternative, that it should be said that witness had bought Croupier for an unspecified sum. He had had nothing to do with any newspaper paragraphs bearing on thei'case. He could only suggest that the information in a message from Christchurch had come from the conference offhe. He admitted getting several telegrams asking for money due from Croupier's winnings and for information, and said be thought he had replied to these.

The case was adjourned until this morning-