AGAIN BEFORE COURT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 17951, 1 December 1932, Page 3

AGAIN BEFORE COURT

THE CROUPIER CASE REGISTRAR AS RECEIVER EACH PARTY TO PAY COSTS. (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, last night. Another aspect of the litigation over tho ownership of the racehorse Croupier camo before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court, to which on behalf of J. J. Curry, merchant, of Blenheim, Mr. Thomson applied for costs of the action for the appointment of a receiver to take control of Croupier pending its sale, for the taking of accounts and for the winding up of tho partnership between Corry and John and James Paterson, merchants, of Auckland (Mr. Inder). Mr. Thomson said it was obvious that a receiver must be appointed. Mr. Inder said that the accounts were to be taken by the registrar, and the question of the receivership should bo in his hands, too. This was agreed to, His Honor remarking 1 that the registrar might delegate his duties to someone he selected. Mr, Inder: “Unfortunately he will not bo able to nominate the horse for racing,” referring to tho fact that the Court of Appeal had altered llis Honor's judgment. Mr. Thomson, in asking for costs, said that the plaintiff Corry had been successful in every, part of the action except over tho final result.

H isHonor said the case was a singular one, because if a certain document made known to the Court of Appeal had been discovered by the plaintiff earlier, ho did not suppose there would have been any litigation at all. The case would have been settled, because that document made it quite clear that there was a joint interest in the horse. Mr. Thomson said both parties were equally at fault over the document. Mr. Inder said that was not the position. Corry hud procured the document, and Corry was the plaintiff, and it was for him to have produced the document. Tho judgment of the Supreme Court had not been set aside by tho Court of Appeal, but merely varied in some particular.

His Honor, said-he could not see that there was any justification or excuse for tho non-discovery of this vital document, signed by Corry and James' Paterson, acknowledging that the animal was jointly owned. All parties were at fault, and they must therefore be held equally responsible for the costs to which they had been put. Had their memories been better, no action would have been brought. He directed that each party pay its own costs, and made an order appointing the . registrar of the' Supremo Court receiver of the horse.