OWNERSHIP OF CROUPIER

Taranaki Daily News, 1 December 1932, Page 7

OWNERSHIP OF CROUPIER

APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER

COSTS TO BE SHARED BY PARTIES

AT.T, WERE-RESPONSIBLE FOR CASE

FAILED TO REMEMBER DOCUMENT.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.' Auckland, Last .Night. Another aspect of the litigation oyer the ownership of the racehorse Croupier came before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court when on behalf ! of J. J. Corry, merchant, Blenheim, Mr. Thomson applied for the costs of the action, for the appointment of a receiver to take control of Croupier pending its sale, for /the taking of accounts and • th a. wjr> d ing-up of the partnership between Corry and John arid James Paterson, merchants, Auckland (Mr. Inder). - ’ t Mr. Thomson said it was obvious that a receiver must be appointed. Mr. Inder said the accounts were to be taken by the registrar and the question of receivership should be in his hands too. This was agreed to, His Honour remarking that the registrar might delegate big duties to someone he selected. Mr. Inder: “Unfortunately he will not be able to nominate the horse for racing.” Referring to the fact that the Court of Appeal had altered His Honour’s judgment, Mr. Thomson in asking for costs said that Corry had been successful in every part of the action except one: His Honour- said the case was a singular one. because if a certain document made known to the Court of Appeal had:been discovered by plaintiff earlier he - did not suppose there would have been any -litigation at all; the case would have been settled because the document made it cleat that there was a joint interest in the horse. _ Both parties were equally at fault Over the document, said .Mr. Thomson. That was not the position, Mr. Inder replied. • Corry - produced the document and Corry was the plaintiff and it was for him to have produced the dbcu- > ment. The judgment of the Supreme Court had not -been set aside by theCourt of Appeal but had been merely Varied in some particulars. Hie Honour said he could not see that there was any justification or excuse for .the non-discovery of this vital document signed by Corry and James Paterson acknowledging that the animal was jointly owned. All the parties were at fault and they must 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 SupremeCourt receiver of the horse.