A TROTTING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6284, 15 September 1898, Page 3

A TROTTING CASE.

7?+ T~ ■' ■ - D. MAHONEY v. , J. HIGGINS. The case Daniel. Mahoney v. J. Higgins, claim .£4B 18s 6d and the return of the trotting mare Maggie M. or its value .£SO, which had been partly heard before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., a few weeks ago, and adjourned by him to"~ehable the matter to be settled by arbitration, was again brought before him this morning. Mr Byrne appeared for the plaintiff, and explained that it had been found that to submit the case for arbitration would have entailed too much expense. Mr Kippenberger appeared for the defendant. There was a counter claim by the defendant for .£6B 14s lid, made up of cash lent, half of expenses due, and the original purchase money for the horse. , . The two cases were taken together. A. I. Battray, secretary to the Christchurch Trotting Clubs, said that Higgins had been disqualified for life by the Lancaster Park. Trotting Club since the case had been heard previously. "There was nothing dishonest about Mahoney enteringthehorse iii his wife's or an assumed name; that was provided for in the rules. Presuming that the horse had been entered in Holmes's name, the stakes would have gone to Holmes. James Smith also gave evidence. ■ Margaret Mahoney, wife of the plaintiff, said she remembered giving a receipt to Higgins for the mare, dated August 14. Higgins told her that he required the receipt as a check on Kerr's dishonesty. He did not explain to her how the receipt would act as a check upon Kerr. • This was shortly before the mare went to Timaro. Witness received no money" whatever, neither .£3O nor apy part of it. She saw him on his return from Timaru anxi asked him for the receipt. . He said he had destroyed it, as it was qnite useless, and witness did not bother about it any more. TJp till June 9 she knew the mare was in Higgins b possession. Witness did not own the mare. Cross-examined : Higgins and her husband asked her to sign the receipt. It was at Higgins's request that her husband agreed to her signing it. She remembered nothing of a row between Higgins and her husband in November, 1896. When her husband demanded the return ;of the mare Higgins would not give up possession unless he was paid 3i50, which witness said was not due. She knew of the agreement signed in Sept. 11, 1896. Her husband borrowed JB3O from one Bing on account. The .£3O her husband borrowed from Higgins, made part of the .£SO. Joseph Hooper and James Redmond also gave evidence. Daniel Mahoney (re-called) said that he would not let the mare go for £50. He remembered meeting Higgins last year, and having a talk with him. He (Hiprgins) had not previously told him that he would give witness a week to buy the mare back. Witness had a few words with Higgins about the mare, and had also a row with another person. After November, 1897, witness considered that the mare was his own, except what he owed Higgins. Witness owed Victor Harris some money, and after he had been sued for a settlement he told Mr Harris that he did not own the horse. He told a falsehood to better his position, and he paid something like 10s in the £ of the debt. Witness did not remember seeing Mr Chadwick on the Show Grounds about Dec. 27, 1897. He did not remember meeting him in the street and asking him if Maggie M; had a chance in a race. He did not have any conversation with Holmes about entering the horse in Holmes's name, and had no knowledge of the entry. This closed the case for the plaintiff. [Left sitting.]