OWNER’S CREDIT.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 April 1925, Page 4

OWNER’S CREDIT.

I STARLING OF RACEHORSES. _ AN INTERESTING DECISION. ' JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

In the Ashburton Magistrate's Court on Friday, Air E. D. Mosley, S.M., delivered an interesting judgment in tho ease, heard on April 3rd.. in which the question of whether a trainer can pledge an owner’s credit for the stabling of a racehorse and the trainer’s keep was involved. The ease was one in which <). Digby. of Ashburton, proceeded against P. Stephens, of Hokitika, for £3 3s.

Mr R. Kennedy appeared for plain till', and Air A. K. North for defendant.

The judgment was as follows:

“Tho plaintiff claims to recover from rhe defendant the sum of £2 3s, amount owing for hire of loose-box for bor.se, Prosperity, and board for attendant. In this ease considerable* evidence bad been taken at Hokitika and Loeston, and lie had heard the evidence of the plaintiff in Ashburton. Shortly, the facts were: One Kingan. a horse trainer, was sent over to Ashburton and other places by the defendant, in charge of a horse. Prosperity. with instructions to race the horse at various meetings. Kingan was supplied by the owner with tunds to pay expenses, and from time to time additional money was sent to him. Kingan was told not to run up any accounts. In September, Kingan arrived at Ashburton, and engaged a loose-box Irom the plaintiff, echo stated that tie knew the horse, hut there is no evidence that lie* knew the owner. It is abundantly clear that the plaintiff looked to Kingan as the person responsible lor payment. Plaintill' slides Kingan said: ‘The account is quite in order. I have not got sufficient. money to pay the* account.. 1 am going to the Geraldine races, and probably there will he some money there from my employer.’ Plaintiff further staled that ‘Kingan asked me to meet the train when lie (Kingan) came- hack from Geraldine, and that he would probably then he able to pay the account.’ On tin* Ashburton railway station, where plaintiff met Kingan on his way back from Geraldine. Kingan said to plaintiff: ‘.My employer sent me some money to Geraldine. just sufficient to cover my expenses there.’ It was at this interview (hat Kingan told defendant, to po.-t the account to the defendant, and that would tic* all right.. ’lbis is apparently the first occasion cm which defendant’s name was mentioned. Plaintiff posted the account to defendant, who promptly repudiated liability.

AIAKING OF THE CONTRACT “Plaintiff states that he lets loosetaxes for race meetings and that the owner of the horses have always paid, hut that, he hoped and expected to get, the* money on this occasion Irom K ingan. He furl or states that ibis is the* first account lie has sent. “[t is clear from this evidence' that the contract was made by the plaintiff with Kingan, and that plaintiff looked to Kingan to pay. At the lime ilic* eon tract, was made plaint iff seems to have, failed to make any enquiries as to the ownership of the horse, and seems to have been qnile satisfied to look to Kingan for | aymeiit. Now, the only ground on which this action cun In* sustained against Stephens i* that Kingan acted as his agent or steward, and that lie had authority, express or implied, to pledge his principal's credit. “It is clear from (lie* evidence that Kingan had no express authority to pledge defendanl ’s credit for anything. Had Kingan any implied authority so to do? Wliat are tin* factsk I find that the contract was made by and with Kingan for payment. The defendant’s name? is not introduced into the matter at all null! ft -. j- lie- interview on Hie Abbtnlini railway station. Plaintiff aided on the contract made with him by Kingan. and cm that a person other than Kingan would pay his account had at that time never occurred to plaintiff. II appears that there is no evidence to fix liability on the defendant. in this ease. NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE. “[ am entirely unable to assume lh a t R must he taken as common knowledge that trainers have authority to pledge, their owners' credit lor loose-boxes and for hoard. Nor am I aware that any such custom cxi-ls from which implied authority might he clod need. “Judgment will therefore he for iu<* defandant, with costs." The costs amounted to £5 17s fid. “Al v opinion is that an honest man has Ih-oii taken down, and I would have liked to give judgment in his favour if T could,” added (lie AfagisI rale, referring to plaintiff.