WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ?

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1179, 14 July 1911, Page 2

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ?

FOR TRAINING FEES. THE RACEHORSE RAXGIKAPUA. There was a flavour of (ho turf in an action brought in the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., when Charles I'rilehaid, horse trainer", Lower Hutt, proceeded agonist J. Harle, settler, Wellington, and T. Long, settler, Wellington, to recover the sum of ,£157 f, SI 5d., alleged to bo due to plaintiff by defendants for foes, etc., in connection with the training of the racehorse liaimiknpua from Jlarch 2", I'm, to April St 11)11. Defendant Long had previously confessed judgment, but the action was con lusted by llie other defendant. i^-'Vi' , W ,' J" c!iSOU appeared for tho plaintif], and Sir. Kair for the dofendaut J Iu rlis

Plaintiff, in evidence, slated that the deiemtants were the joint-owners of the racehorse Kandkumin, and they were such m March, 11)09. In Hint month Long asked plaintill if he would take the hor ? o and.train him for Harle and himsell. Plaintill agreed to do so, and AT 2s. per week was the remuneration agreed upon. Plaintiff has kept, fed, and tramtil the horse from March 27, 1909 to llm present time. Up till April 21, 1911, there was due in respect of the .training of the horse £221 Ss., and £12 os. sd. for oxpenses incurred in talcing the horse about to race meetings, mid for nomination tecs, etc., making a total of £2:jo Bs. sd. Of his amount plaintiff J ms received £79 leaving a balance of £157 Bs. sd. It apl pearcd that on October 1, 1910, Harle and Long had entered into an agreement whereby L<mg was to bear (he colt of t£ training of the horse, and Harlo to take J; , , P^-."" 1 ' 0 ' tue liorse's winnings. Fi la T t,ff /n S - not tol(1 b >' cither Loiir or Harle of this agreement, and continued to train and race the horse, under the impression that he was doing eo for botli defendants, and it was not until last Jlarch, when speaking to Ilarle about the mcuey owing him, that Hirlo told him of tho agreement. Long had confessed judgment, am Harle denied liability on (he ground that, under tho agreement, Long was solely responsible. • Cross-examined by Mr. Pair, witness saw that Long was "chasing him for a month" before he took the horse, and, when the horse was handed over, witness knew that Long and Ilarle were tho owners. Long told him so. The horse was kept for two years. It was not successful in its races, but it was a big, overgrown horse, and was expected to improve with nge. It ran a lot of seconds and thirds. Long never proposed giving up _ racing twelve months ago. He asked witness to go on, so that ho (Long) might get out of the debt.;Mr. Fair: Didn't you know Long had nothing?—"l knew Mr. Harle was well ablfl to pay." Mr. Fair: Wasn't it funny he should ask you to go ou?-"No. Ho had nothing to loso and a chance to win. Plenty of them will go on that way."

Witness had never received any money from Harlc, whatever. Witness did not follow the Racing Calendar closely, but ho know that lung, Harle, and Long were in the ownership, and believed that King had got out. Ho never saw notice of a lease from Harle, King, and Long, to King nnd Long. Sometimes Long had paid expenses on the racecourse ,; . to provent it running on. ' Witness had never shown the account to Harle, because the latter refused to have anything to do with tho matter.

lle-oxnmined by Mr. Jackson, witness stated that he knew King, and knew that he had originally been concerned'in the ownership of tho horso. The evidence <if W. H. E. Wanklyn, taken in Christchurch,. was put in. As secretary to the New Zealand Hacing Conference, Mr. Wanklyn produced the registration of the racehorse Tiangikapua, dnted October 2G, 1010, showing a partnership in equal shares and joint ownership by the defendant. Ho also produced a copy of the register of a leaso of tho horse from narle to Long, dated October 1, 1910, to October 14, 1011, for a consideration of 15 per cent, of winnings not to exceed .£2OO.

This was plaintiff's case. Mr. Fair considered that defemknt.had a clear case on merit, but,- before) going, into it, counsel wished to put forward a non-suit point, He contended' that his Worship had no jurisdiction in tho matter, because tho full claim was for ' over £200, and there was no admitted credit or sot off. On tho evidence, also, fie contended that defendant was entitled to a. non-suit because plaintiff had not shown Hint Long had any authority to pledge Mr. Jackson submitted that tho rule could not apply, as plaintiff had sued two defendants, who were joint owners, and the fnct that Long confessed judgment bound Harlo to a certain extent. The Magistrate: Yes, but Long being a man of straw, as is suggested, he does not care what he admits . I dmi t see that his confession should bind Hnrle. TCis Worship added that he would look into (bo non-snit point, before calling or. the defence. He was me ined to Mr. Fair's view at the present, but would givo decision on Tuesday next.