ABOUT A TROTTER

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 118, 21 May 1942, Page 8

ABOUT A TROTTER

OPTION IN QUESTION

DISPUTE IN SUPREME COURT

An unusual case came before Mr. Justice Callan and a jury of four in the Supreme Court to-day, when William E. S. McKay, trotting horse trainer (Mr. R. S. Burt) proceeded against Clarence L. Hill, painter (Mr. Spence), claiming completion of an agreement to sell the trotting horse Tumble for £75, and also £500 damages and expenses arising out of failure to complete the agreement on July 31 last year. The defendant alleged that the option to purchase had not been completed.

Mr. Burt said that defendant had leased the horse to plaintiff for three years with an option to purchase for £75 before July 31, 1941. The horse showed unexpected improvement in its performance, and plaintiff decided to exercise his option to purchase. Four days before the period of expiry of the option he called on defendant with another man, who was about to write a cheque, whifen defendant protested that the agreement was to sell to plaintiff, not to the other man, and would not make the sale. Plaintiff then got the money, and after several times visiting defendant's house and failing to get in touch with him, lodged the money with the president of the trotting club on defendant's behalf. The horse had run a good trial just before that, and plaintiff was anxious to enter it in forthcoming Auckland and Thames meetings, as he judged by the trial he could win good events. The ownership dispute prevented entry of the horse in these events, and he put such loss at £445.

His Honor pointed out that plaintiff was asking for specific performance in respect to the agreement to sell, as well as damages, and that by the Court procedure a case for specific performance had to be heard before a judge alone.

After plaintiff had given evidence, his Honor adjourned the hearing to enable plaintiff's counsel to elect whether to proceed for specific performance of the sale, or for damages only.