Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 142, 20 May 1893, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Thursday, May 18th. (Before Mr. Brabant, R.M.) The following is the conclusion of the case Baker v Irvine, the first part of which was published in our last issue :— Arthur Irvine deposed that the teitns or the agreement with Baker were, that plaintiff offered to train the mare Cruiskeen at his own expense, and to pay all entranco fees, any winnings to be equally divided between the two ; witness paid the nominations for Marton himself, as Baker said he was short of ready money, until he drew his wages ; nobody was present when the arrangement was made, but Uakor and the witness'; when- the paper with the Otaki nominations came to hand witness saw the mare was entered- in Baker's name, which piaTOE susfJElouT* that all was not going on 'straightforwardly. The Sunday before Marton races Baker asked for money to pay the jockey's fees, but he was unable to give him any. :?,- -„ } * 5 Cross examined : Wittiest hatf new heard anything against Baker's character when he knew him in the South Island ; witness bad never told any of the station hands that he was paying 30s a week for the mare's training. The reas6n oMns taking the animal from Baker .was ia consequence of information supplied by a man named Cameron. William Watts, Stationmaster at Feilding, deposed that he supplied a horse .box to Wellsman for Marton races. ; '■ ~"\\ William Carviß wab also i examined f ofC 1 the defence. , . r ..... ,, At James Cameron deposed that 'he' had .half the horse box., with Wellsman to,.Marton races ; Baker told Witness he was^ 1 running the mare on halfes, and 'when returning from the races- Baker said they had bad lack,* and he! meant having- iW mare, consequently W/itneaj adyisod) Ii» . ■■■■ ■; vine to fetch tne mare jhome. -, : „.-%-■ ,~ Cross examined ; "Witness had no re« collection of telling tWellsman fiat he wanted the mare for himself. Mr Sandilands addressed the B >nch and T Mr Beade replied, : „„...,.,...,-,■ His Worship, in delivering judgment said that though the plaintiffs evidence was corroborated in man) parts by, his_ witness Wellsman the tatter's version" | disagrees in several important particulars I. and this witness is evidently much; in- j tere-ited in the result. On the other, band -<; bearing in mind that the defendant is , only a labouring , man, and was ia no : . position to incur heavy horse. training* ex-* f' penses, his version of the affair is tficr . more reasonable one. His Worship- was ' of opinion that the plaintiff had failed to>' ■ make out his case and: must be nonsuited, v : with 6s costs of court, :19s 3d . witnesses '6Jc(ionse?. and 21s solicitor's fee against him. „..,.- J" "^ \ „* The Court then adjourned; 1 -" ; ' ? '•■- -*■ ' J T-