RACING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 301, 19 December 1931, Page 1

RACING CASE.

Legal Proceeding# Over Croupier. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, December 18. The first action in the legal battle which is pending for the ownership of the racehorse Croupier was decided before Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court. Croupier is a brilliant three-year-old bred by Messrs John and James Paterson, of Auckland, but the horse has done all his racing under the colours of Mr J. J. Corry, of Blenheim. On the last day of the Canterbury Jockey Club’s meeting last month Croupier was seized on behalf of Messrs Paterson, after running third in the G. G. Stead Cup, and was brought to Auckland, where he has since been training at Ellerslie. Three days ago legal proceedings for the possession of the horse were commenced by Mr Corry against the brothers Paterson, and the case came before Mr Justice Reed in the Supreme Court in the form of an application on behalf of Mr Corry for the appointment of an interim receiver and manager to take charge of Croupier until the action came on for trial, so that the horse might be raced in the meantime. The motion was opposed on behalf of the brothers Paterson. Partnership Denied. Counsel for the Patersons said the horse was at present in their possession and they had taken it in on November 14. His Honor: The other side claim there is a partnership. Counsel: We deny a partnership. His Honor suggested it would be better for all parties if some person in whom they all had confidence was nominally in charge of the horse until the legal issue was settled. Counsel for Patersons said he did not think such a person would be accepted by the racing authorities. Now that the Racing Conference knew the position it seemed that the horse would not be allowed to race, which was a great pity, because counsel understood Croupier was a very good horse.

“ Does a horse race for twelve years?” asked his Honor, in reference to the fact that the partne'rship document showed an agreement lasting until 1940. “ Some can,” said counsel for the defendant. “ I think the father of this horse raced longer than that.” Counsel said that after breeding the horse the Patersons sent it to Corry at Blenheim to train, and then they were to race it jointly so far as stakemoney was concerned. There was never any suggestion" that ownership was to be transferred to Corry, who was now claiming that the horse was given to him. Corry had collected all the stakes and accounted for only a very small portion. The only remedy of the Patersons was to get the horse back again. The whole issue to be tried was whether the horse was owned by the Patersons or by Corry, or in partnership. Defendant’s Statement. John Paterson, who with his brother is now in possession of the horse, said Croupier had been nominated for the Railway Handicap, the King’s Plate and the Clifford Plate, to be decided at the Auckland Racing Club’s meeting at Christmas. Even if permitted, Paterson did not propose to start the horse in any of these races. He did not propose to start the horse at all until the question of ownership had been decided. Croupier was not in a fit state. He had been resting and doing easy work. It would take a month or six weeks to prepare the horse for racing. Corry had nominated him for races here. Counsel for plaintiff: As the matter now stands Corry is the only one who can nominate him. Paterson: I do not think Corry can nominate him. His Honor said the effect of the issue of the writ was that the horse could not race until the writ was decided. Counsel for plaintiff said Corry wanted to race the horse. The action could not come before the Court until March. He applied for the appointment of plaintiff as receiver. Counsel for defendant: He is in Blenheim and the horse is in Auckland. In reply to a question as to the document in Court showing the date of expiry of the alleged partnership between plaintiff and defendant as July 31, 1940, Paterson said neither he nor his brother had given authority for that date to be inserted, and it was not there when he signed it. His Honor said it would have been quite different if it had been proposed to race the horse. A receiver might then have been appointed, but as it was not going to be raced the motion for appointment of a receiver would be dismissed. The question of costs was reserved.