Qninlivan-Douglas Arbitration Case.

Hastings Standard, Issue 25, 26 May 1896, Page 3

Qninlivan- Douglas Arbitration Case.

♦ VERDICT FOR QUINLIVAN FOR £765 AND COST. The case of Quinlivan v. Douglas has been before the public since the win of Brooklet in the Wellington C'up on January 22nd last, and the circumstances are well known by our readers. Quinlivan claimed £2-300 from Douglas for taking possession of Brooklet when he held a lease of the mare. This amount was made up by sums won by that animal, sums likely to have been won. and wagers which would probably have been won by backing her if she had remained in his stable instead of being seized. For the mare The Brook he claimed £IOSO. There were claims for training expenses and for amounts disbursed for nomination fees, Ac. (£437). Douglas denied that he had ever engaged Quinlivan as trainer, but admitted limited liability for keep of horses placed in the latter's hands at Hastings at various periods. Douglas stated that his reason for seizing Brooklet, The Brook, and other horses from Quinlivan's stable was that Quinlivan had not behaved well at the Palmerston and Ashurst meetings and subsequently at Woodville, and that he had neglected the horses and knocked them about. Quinlivan denied these allegations. Douglas admitted having received various sums in trust from Quinlivan as claimed and allowed them in credit of settlement. After considering a large amount of evidence the arbitrators (Messrs H, P. Cohen and F. Bee), were unable to agree, and the case was referred to the referee (Mr A. C. Loughnan), the result of whose decision is as follows : U Mr Quinlivan is awarded the

sum of £432 10s, being three-quarters of the winnings of the mare Brooklet piii'-he was taken possession of by Mr Douglas. 2. Mr Quinlivan is awarded The Brook or her value £250, damages for 1-ir wrongful seizure ,€25, damages for h> r wrongful detention £l2-7. Mr Douglas is awarded the sum oi t'ijT 0s 2d, being a balance of accounts between the parties on all points of difference within the first two months. 4. Costs are awarded against Mr Dong!a~. 'I iie t-rial award against Mr Douglas is t;s:;2 10s, reduced by £G7 0s Id in iv-ix ct to the amounts allowed on the counter ckiim, and by £250 if he returns The Brook, leaving him £515 9s lid and costs still to pay. Ouinli van s claim was about £IOOO, against which Douglas put in a contra of £llß.