DISPUTE ABOUT RACEHORSES

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 240, 28 June 1918, Page 6

DISPUTE ABOUT RACEHORSES

HIiSEKVED JUDGMENT. The Uegislrar of the Supremo Court (Mr W. A. Hawkins) read the reserved udgment of Mr. Justice lioskmg yesterday in a Blenheim case in respect to two racehorses. The parties to the dispute were John Joseph (Jorry, merchant, of Blenheim, pluintili, and John lhomas Murphy, stock deuler, also oi Blenheim, defendant. The action was originally brought in the Magistrate's Court and removed to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff claimed from the defendant a brood mare named Prologue (since dead), and her colt Halloweve, or AM in case possession could not be had, and JJIOO for their detention. Defendant claimed that the imiro and colt were purchased on the terms of a partnership in equal slvurs between the parties, whereby the plaintiff provided the purciiaso money and the defendant was to loo.i ■lifter'the two horses, rear the colt and nrovide both gracing and forage for the two animals. The defendant also coun-ter-claimed against the plaintiff for certain moneys paid to the use of the plaintiff in connection with Prologue and cerr tain marcs of the siaintiif, also for a declaration of partnership upon the terms included in the statement of defence. His Honour said the question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the sole ownership of the colt, or whether there was n partnership in the animal as alleged by the defendant. The partnership claimed was not evidenced by any writing, and the oral evidence by the plaintiff was in flat contradiction of the defendant as to the basis of acquiring the mare and colt, and as to matters which, if uncontradicted, would go to corroborate or destroy one or the other of the rival contentions as to the basis of acquisition. The question was which side presented the most probable 6tory ; After reviewing the evidence at considerable! length His Honour said that the facts disclosed were sufficient to decide that the defendant's interest was what he claimed, but supposing there had been no evidence by which to define the extent of defendant's interest it would be a necessary consequence of law that the sbaTes should be deemed equal. Judgment would therefore he for defendant, ind on the counter-claim would bo for, a declaration as claimed and for the recovery of J2103 155., and either party is to be at liberty to apply for any account to be taken in and for any relief he may bo entitled to on tire.,declaration. The question of costs wns reserved. At the hearing Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant.