TRAINING OF RACEHORSE

Taranaki Daily News, 20 September 1929, Page 7

TRAINING OF RACEHORSE

QUESTION OF PAYING FEES VENTURE OF BRIXTON FARMER. INTERESTED PARTY MISSING. The tangled partnership in a racehorse, Gil Aitken, was straightened out in the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., yesterday. It was a question of who should pay training fees owing to William Mantle, New Plymouth. Frankly he was sorry he had ever seen the horse, said Everard Gilmour. He got it only by accident and had now given his share of it away. "'Alexander Aitken, a farmer of Brixton, had to pay £l6 16s in training fees after the day had passed. He had a promise of a share in the horse when it should begin racing. , The only other man who had the ghost of a partnership at one time in the horse, Charles Bridger, had no regrets. He had gone away some time before ’without paying anything, it was alleged. He could not now be found. The filly had fallen into his hands accidentally, said Everard Gilmour. He had agreed to give Aitken a half-share in it when it began racing if in the meantime Aitken would rear it and keep it at his farm. He had called on Gilmour one day, said Aitken, and Gilmour had said he was sick and tired of the horse. If Aitken could get a buyer for his share, he-said, he would sell it for £35. Just down the street Aitken had been introduced to Bridger, who said he would buy Gilmour’s half share. Taking Bridger at his word, Aitken went with him and together they took the filly from the farm to Mantle’s place to be trained. HORSE REMOVED FROM FARM. After the horse had been there some time Gilmour had discovered it had been moved from the farm and also some facts about Bridger. With Aitken he had gone to Mantle’s and they had taken the horse away. The settlement 1 of training fees for eight weeks at £3 IQs a week was demanded from Aitken by Mantle. Aitken had paid £B, said the rest was Bridger’s share, and paid no more. Yesterday Mantle claimed from Aitken the balance owing, £2O 16s. '' The defence claimed that the contract had been made for the training of the horse by Mantle with Aitken and also separately by Mantle with Bridger. The plaintiff’s case was. that the contract had been made purely between Mantle and Aitken and that there never had been any arrangement "between Mantle and Bridger. The magistrate found that the contract was made for the training of the horse by Aitken with Mantle and Aitken would have to pay. Judgment was given for plaintiff for eight weeks’ fees at £3 per week, plus 16s incidental expenses, less £8 already paid, a total of £l6 16s. The defendant, said Mr. A. A. Bennett, who appeared for plaintiff, had brought into the case Charles Bridger, whom defendant alleged was a party to the contract. That there wa.s any arrangement made with regard to Bridger at all his client emphatically denied. The onus was on the defendant to prove that this most peculiar and unusual three-sided contract was in existence. Bridger, according to the racing records, had never been registered as a joint owner of the horse. Mantle, said Mr. Bennett, was a public trainer of 19 years’ .standing who had trained for some of the most prominent racehorse owners. He claimed fees for training the filly for eight weeks at £3 10s a week, plus incidental expenses 16s, less £8- already paid by Aitken, a total claim of £2O 165.. Mantle, because of Bridger’s alleged dealings, had refused to make any arrangement with him at all regarding the training of the filly. EVIDENCE OF AGREEMENT. He had made arrangements for the training of the filly with Aitken, said William Mantle in evidence. Bridger had come to his house with Aitken and Aitken had wanted him to look to the two of them for the fees. He had refused altogether to have anything to do with Bridger. It was agreed that Aitken should pay £3 a week till his cows came in and then £3 IDs. Some time later Mantle had gone to I Waitara and collected £8 from Aitken for training, the filly. Subsequently, one day when he was away from home, the filly was removed. Mr. Grey: What training did you give the filly? Mantle: It would cost you £3 10s a week for me to tell you that. He had given the horse the regular routine training. The filly was in gross condition and would need a lot of “hacking about.” When the horse had been taken away he had gone to Gilmour, but he had not asked him to pay Bridger’s share. To Mr. Bennett: The filly was treated exactly as the other horses in the stable, was fed and dressed regularly. She was worth looking after. When the horse left him it looked very well. The defence, said Mr. Grey, was that Mantle had made a contract with Bridger to pay one-half of the total training fees and another contract with Aitken to pay the other half. Gilmour, the real owner of the horse, had promised to give Aitken a half share in it. Bridger had offered to buy the other half share. Without waiting for the deal to be made, they had gone to see Mantle and the three-sided contract was made. Bridger had promised to pay the training fees before he had got his share of the horse. The contract, claimed Mr. Grey, had been made at Mantle’s house. The defence claimed that Aitken, had paid his fair share for the training of the horse. It was claimed, too, that the horse had been neglected in the stables. Only when Bridger did not pay was Aitken looked to for the money, said Mr. Grey. Alexander Aitken said he had gone to Mantle’s in Bridger’s car. Bridger had told Mantle he had acquired a half share from Gilmour through Aitken ami asked Mantle what the training fees would be. Mantle had said the price would be £3 for the first three months and then £3 10s. Bridger had said to Mantle: ‘ Then we’ll pay you 30s a week each.” zAfter the conversation they had gone out in Bridger’s car to Aitken’s plac at Waitara, where the horse was. Man-

tle had agreed to train the horse on the terms arranged. Aitken had takejn the horse in a day or so later to Mantle’s place to be trained. He had never seen Mantle again until he came and asked him for his share of the training fees. He had given Mantle £B. He next saw Mantle at the Waiwakaiho sale, where Mantle asked him to pay Bridger’s share. Later he had gone with Gilmour to Mantle’s place and under Gilmour’s direction he had caught the horse and taken it away. Strictly speaking he was not exactly a half owner of the horse. He was promised a half share wheiL,it should begin racing for the consideration of rearing it and keeping it on his place at Waitara. Gilmour had refused to let Bridger have his share of the horse, and,it was because of this refusal that the visit was made and the horse removed. He knew the horse, much to his sorrow, said 'Everard R. C. Gilmour. He was no longer a part owner. He had given his share away. The day after the horse was taken. Mantle had come in, stated Gilmour, and demanded abuseively that he should pay a share for the 'training. Mantle had again been abusive on the Stratford racecourse, though he had taken no notice. Then, in disgust, he had turned to his trainer and said he could have his share. The sale to Bridger was never approved by him. He had given a verbal undertaking to Aitken that he would sell his share to someone, but when he found that the prospective buyer was Bridger he refused to make the sale altogether. At the time of training Bridger had no real share in the horse. The horse was paddocked, fed and stabled, said R.' W. Davis, a former employee of Mantle, but not ridden so much as the other horses. It was taken to the beach for training. An ex-horse trainer, A. McArthur, said he took over. the horse after it had been at Mantle’s. Its condition was quite good, but it had, in his opinion, been hardly trained at all. The horse was “as green as a cabbage.” Mr, Bennett: Mantle is a trainer of 10 years’ standing. Do you criticise his methods? Witness; No.