RACEHORSE CROUPIER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21163, 21 April 1932, Page 12

RACEHORSE CROUPIER.

DISPUTED OWNERSHIP. BREEDERS DENY GIFT. EXTENT OF PARTNERSHIP. JUDGE RESERVES DECISION. Tie legal contest for the ownership of Ihe three-vear-old racehorse Croupier was continued before Mr. Justice llcrdman in the Supreme Court yesterday. Ihe rival claimants are John Joseph Corry, of Blenheim, and John and James Paterson, of Auckland. Croupier, which had been bred by the Patersons and raced by Corry, was seized on behalf of the Patersons under sensational circumstances at tho Ricearton Racecourse last November and brought to Auckland. The plaintiff, Corry, claimed that Croupier had been given to him by the Patersons as a yearling and asked for £IOOO damages for wrongful removal and detention, and for an order that a receiver be appointed and accounts be taken between the parties. The defendants asked for a declaration that the horse was their solo propeity and for the taking of accounts. Continuing under cross-examination, tho plaintiff said he had charged £5 10s a we?k training fees for this gift horse, a yearling, from May, 1950. He thought thf.t was a fair and reasonable charge. The horse required an immense lot of care. The charge of £ls 15s for breaking in was in addition to the weekly charge. Until October, 1931, he had not charged training fees in his ledger. 'lhe dispute as to ownership arose in June, 1931. Money Owed Defendants. Witness said he would not charge training fees for a horse he considered his own. Bince June last he considered the horse w?is partly his own and partly the Patersons'. On his statement lie was duo the Petersons £239 for half-share in the winnings of Croupier. Of this he had paid £4O, which was all Paterson had asked for at the time. The Patersons had never asked him for an account. He knew Paterson wanted money, and he would have given it to him if he had been able to. In re-examination plaintiff said lie could rot have made a complete statement of Croupier's accounts until after the Canterbury meeting. He gave Palerson's agent a promissory note for £l5O at that meeting because he understood Paterson needed it. Counsel for Defendant : Much good that was to him when you dishonoured it! Counsel for Plaintiff: Would you have honoured it, were you able to honour it if these people had not taken your .horse ? Witness: Certainly. Case for the Delence.

Counsel for the defence said the story ol' the defendants was quite a simple one. In January, 1930, depression had comeupon the country, and their bankers told the Patersons that it was not desirable to continue such an expensive occupation as racing. They decided to sell out their stable of 30, keeping only three, Surveyor, now pensioned off on a farm, Full Measure and the colt that became Croupier. The Fatersons, though fond of this yearling, could not very well race him after having announced that they were giving up racing, and they sent him to Corry to have fcim trained and tried out. A letter of Paterson's asking Corry to look after Croupier and expressing the opinion that he was a good one followed immediately after the alleged gift. There was no suggestion of gift until June, 1931. The defendants could not get. any statement or any money Out of Corry, and a definite promise from him of half the Wellington stakes was not kept. After giving the matter careful consideration they found there was no other course open to them but to take the horse back. Their agent, Collins, told Corry he was going to Jiorse, but Corry pooh-poohed the idea and thought it was a joke. The horse was properly treated after being seized, but on arrival at Auckland it was found that it had been over-raced and overworked, and on the advice of an expert it was laid up for three months. now sought a declaration that they were the owners of Croupier and ihat- accounts be taken. John Paterson, commission broker, one of the defendants, said that at his auction sale of stock Corry bid for him. Witness could not bid, or the others would have stopped bidding. Defendants did Dot want to part with Croupier, as they thought very well of him and he was a big colt. Witness suggested to Corrv v that he should take the colt and look after him and Corry agreed. Witness detailed appeals he had made to Corry personally and by telegram for part of Croupier's earnings. The form produced in Court made out by Corry and signed by witness was the usual ono for assigning a joint interest in a horse. Several telegrams he had sent to Corry for money wore not answered, but at Avondalc Corry gave hirii a cheque for £4O. / Croupier Now Training. Not being able to get any satisfaction witness said he authorised Collins in writing to 7 t ako possession of the horse. W hen Croupier arrived in Auckland his condition was not bad, but he was very tired. He would not have had any reasonable chance .at. the, Ellerslic meeting. His off foreleg was unsound, but it had recovered and he was now in training.

in cross-examination witness said Corry had paid for the transit of Croupier to Blenheim, but Corry had never asked for repayment. If Croupier had turned out no good Corry would have had to collect from witness all expenses for 15 months. He never intended to give Corry any nmre than his expenses. Witness later paid that he had treated Corry generously. He did not agree that the correspondence showed that he admitted having a halfshare in Croupier. The fifty fifty agreement would have been all right if Corry had paid, but Corry did not pay and witness did not think he ever intended to pay. He saw a published statement that Corrv was allowing him a half interest in the horse, but he did not contradict this, though he knew it was untrue. In seizing the horse the defendants were acting not on advice, but on their own account. Hp told Collins to get a promissory nolo from Corry if he could not get anything else. In re-examinntion witness said he did not expect to have to pay £5 10m for the training of Croupier. lie never agreed to give Corrv a half interest in the horse. A Trainer's Denial. Frederick Smith, horse trainer, formerly acting for defendants, said that Croupier had always been a nice-looking colt. " It is an absolute lie," cried witness when asked jibout the evidence that the colt was in poor condition. The Judge: I here is no need to bo so emphatic about it. Witness: It is a slur on my character. James Paterson, one of the defendants, f.aid he had been half-owner in Croupier w'th his brother. Jlc had never auth orised his brother to sell or to give an interest in Croupier, lie never agreed to give Corry an interest in the horse in anything except stakes. Dr. William C. Ring, veterinary surgeon, said that"when lie saw Croup'cr at ■the November meeting in Christchuieh he thought the horse looked a bit tired. When he examined him in Auckland in December he was suffering from an inflammatory condition of the knee cap. It

■would n<st have been possible for him to race at that time. Witness ordered him to be rested as much as possible. George A. Holland, horse trainer, said he had brought Croupier from Plankton to Auckland last November. 11c was very tired and had a swollen knee, lie looked "knocked," which meant he had had enough. 3f witness had his way he would not racu him this season. Herbert Wilson Collins, bush contractor, described how lie had got possession of Croupier at Cliristchurch, acting under Patersons' ins ructions. Witness asked Corry for the money and the horse. Paterson said about £6OO was owing by Corry, but Corry worked it out at about £3OO. Corry f aid he would not give him all that, but lie gave him a promissory note for £l5O. Croupier looked very sore and not fit te- race before his last race. He put a cover and surcingle on the horse when li<; got him outside the gate and looked a ter him well on the way to Auckland.

Witness warned Corry before he got the promissory note from him that he bad come, from Auckland to get tho horse, lie thought Corry would give it to him. A demand was made on him in Wellington fo:; the horse, but he refused to give, him i |>- Counsel for the defence said there was a partnership as far as stakes were concerned. There was no corroboration, lie said, of the plaintiff's claim that the horse was original!} a gift to him. The partnership document had nothing to do with the horse its ;lf, but only with the running and stales of the horse. Ihe whole of the correspondence was completely inconsistent wth the idea of the horse having been given. A material portion of the terms of the partnership, namely its duration, was inserted by one of Ihe parties after signing by the other and without the concurrence of the other. The document was therefore void. His" Honor said tho difficult question was whether any agreement embraced the horse as well as the winnings.

Counsel for plaintiff said_ it was immaterial to his case whether there was any proof of gift before June, 1931. The joint ownership agreement showed that a definite arrangement had been come to for a sharing, both of the horse and of the winnings. His Honor reserved his decision.