LIABILITY OF HORSEOWNERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4614, 10 April 1893, Page 3

LIABILITY OF HORSEOWNERS.

♦ A Magistrate's Court Case. At the Christchurch Resident Magistrate's Court this morning, before Messrs B. Beetham, R.M., and R. Westenra, J.P. an important civil case in regard to the liability of racehorse ownerß was heard. The plaintiff was Henrietta Haines, administratrix of the estate and effects of Uriah Haines, who died on Jan. 30, 1892, and the defendant waa D. O'Brien, the well-known horae-owner. The claim, JESO 13s 6d, was for riding fees during the time deceased was employed by defendant. Mr Wilding appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Lane for defendant. Freeman Haines deposed that deceased j was employed by defendant up to the time of his death. Witness had looked over the list of races deceased had won during the time he was bo employed. The list was correct, but wibneas did not remember ! deceased winning the Russley Stakes on Vanity at the Canterbury Jockey Club's Meeting in April, 1889, Had worked as a stable boy for Mr P. Butler, and while he was in that position rode horseß for his employer. Waß always paid for winning mounts according to the scale passed by the Canterbury Jockey Club. To Mr Lane: Was about twelve or thirteen when he went into Mr Butler's employ as a stable boy. Witness went with the intention of taking up the profession of a jockey. Wa6 employed by Mr Butler for about two years before he received any wages. Could not Bay whether he rode in any races during that period. After this he received 10s a week. When he won the New Zealand Cup on Manton, Mr Butler made him a present of £70. This was a special arrange-* ment, as Mr Butler promised him that amount if he won. Was never paid for losing mounts during the time he was working as a stable boy for Mr Butler. Rode horses for various owners •when he was working for Ms Butler. Thought a &table boy could, also be termed a jockey, as sometimes stable boys did a large amount of riding for their employers. On several occasions witness rode at sports gatherings outside Canter- ' bury, but his expenses were always paid by IMr Butler. Saw deoeased, who was known as witneßß* brother, fre(jnsntly during the

time he was employed- by defendant. He appeared " well pleased with* hid situation, and never made any complaint to witness about not having been paid for l his winning mounto. Did not know what agreement was conae- to between witness 1 father and defendant. Ola one occasion witness gave deceased £70^0- deposit in the Savingp* Bank. Thomas Haines, a fanner residing at the Hmde, said he had always acted as deceased's father. Before deceased went into defendant's employ He exercised Borne of Mr Markey's horses at .Ashburton. After leaving Mr Markey's employ deceased went to defendant's training establishment, at Riccarton. An agreement was - signed by witness previous to deceased commencing Mb- duties at defendant's. Witness did not altogether approve of the terms specified in the agreement. Defendant told witness that he would give the boy the usual i riding fees as allowed by the Canterbury Jockey Club. The agreement Btated that the boy would be in defendant's employ for three years. It did not Btate that he would be alliwed riding feeß. Defendant paid the boy for riding j Helmsman in several races, and* also deposited .£2O int the Savings Bank for him. This was after defendant returned from Melbourne. After the boy diedih January, 1892, witness saw defendant in regard to the fees the boy was entitled to for riding Helmsman, Florrie and other horseß in various engagements. In company with a cabman named Ball witnesß asked defendant to settle the claim. To Mr Lane s The boy waß sixteen years of age when he died. On the agreement it was Btated that the boy was witness' son. The receipts (produced) from the Government Savings Bank belonged to the boy. The sum paid into the Bank on his account amounted to J&128; of which £10 had been deposited by defendant. i The defendant deposed he waa an owner of racehorses, and resided at Upper Riccarton. Had been an apprentice and Btable lad in Australia in 1868. In 1889 took the boy Haines into his- stables as an apprentice. Went to ABhburton and saw Mr Haines about the boy* who wanted to get a situation in witness' stables. After some conversation with Mr Haines, witness drew up an agreement, which stated that the boy would be engaged as an apprentice or stable lad, for a period of three years. Mr Haines signed the agreement, and the boy immediately went to witness' stables. Nothing was said about riding fees. When stable lads rode winning horses the owners generally made them a present of £5 or £10. This was a general custom. The boy waa very smart, and witness gave him a mount on Helmsman at the Autumn Meeting of the Canterbury Jockey Club in 1890. The horse wdn | and witness gave the boy a present of £10, and shortly afterwards opened an account ! for him at the Savings Bank. Witness always tried to prevent his boys from gambling, and when he made them a money | present he advised them to deposit it in the Savings Bank. The boy deposited | various sums in the Bank, and the receipts were always addressed to witj ness, who acted as trustee for the boy. Gave him two £10 notes and one £5-note for winning racea. In addition to giving the boy presents for winning races, witness gave him 10a weekly, aa specified in . the agreement. On several occasions allowed him to ride for other owners, who forwarded sums of money to witness if the boy succeeded in winning. Witness -always gave him this money. Never paid his stable boys for losing-mounts. Sometimes gave them presents for loaing-mounts. The boy never made any claim to witness for riding feea. G. G. Stead deposed that he was a racehorse owner, and had several stable lads and apprentices in his employ. They were paid wages, and his trainer taught them to ride. After the boys had gained a little experience, they were allowed to ride in races. If they succeeded in winning .witness gave them a present, but a boy was not entitled to any payment until he had learned his profession. When one of his boys rode for other owners, he allowed them to receive any money the owner thought fit to give him. Witness never took the money, but it was the custom in England when an apprentice won a race for the master to take the money. Some-times-stable lads and apprentices were worth thousands of pounds to their masters. A jockey always paid his own expenses, but an owner generally paid a Btable boy's expenses if he wanted him to ride at country gatherings. A Btable boy was not allowed to ride for any owner unless hia employer consented. Never gave an apprentice anything for riding a losing mount. Mr Beetham, in giving judgment, said the Bench was of opinion that plaintiff had no claim. Defendant had behaved exceedingly well towards the boy during the time he had been employed by him. Judgment would be given for defendant with costs.