DISPUTED OWNERSHIP

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 124, 20 May 1932, Page 5

DISPUTED OWNERSHIP

Of Racehorse Croupier

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS

BY MR. JUSTICE HERDMAN

(Per Press Association)

AUCKLAND, This Day.

“I declare that defendants are owners of the horse Croupier and that the plaintiff is not, as an owner, entitled to any share or interest in the horse.

I find that plaintiff and defendants were partners in running the horse in the following shares, viz., the plaintiff 50 per cent., and defendants 25 per cent. each. I decree that the partnership shall be dissolved and that an account be taken, by the Registrar, of the partnership dealings between the plaintiff and defendants from the date when the horse was entrusted to plaintiff's care and that affairs of the partnership be wound up by the Court.”

Thus, Mr. Justice Herdman concluded a very lengthy judgment delivered to-day on the action taken in the Supreme Court by J. J. Corry of Blenheim against John and James Paterson, of Auckland. The judge said that he drew the inference that plaintiff and defendants had agreed that the business from the beginning should be treated as a partnership in the running of a horse owned solely by the Patersons. After Corry laid the claim to the horse, as owner, the Patersons took the steps to repossess themselves of it.

“Because that was done, plaintiff claims damages, but as in my view he is not even a part-owner of the animal, I am not aware of any legal principle which would justify me entertaining a claim for damages.”