CROUPIER CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 20 April 1932, Page 2

CROUPIER CASE

THE HEARING CONTINUES

QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP.

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association)

AUCKLAND, April 19

At tlie Croupier case hearing, counsel feu- Corrv said that in January, 1930, defendants held a sale of their bloodstock, and' on their behalf, bought, three horses named F till Measure, Cat-rina and Surveyor, for £415. In recognition of Curry's services, they asked him to take a* a gift a yearling by Surveyor. This yearling became known a* Croupier. At the time, the animal was in poor condition, with no sign of brilliance. Corry fully believed it was a gift. Croupier was nominated as Corry’s property, and met with .some success. Later, tlie defendants wrote saying that they had never given the horse to Corry, and claimed ownership.

Counsel said t-liat the seizure of the horse was high-handed and arbitratory. There was no doubt Corry was looking after tilt! horse well, and if left with him the horse probably would have done well later. Thomas Reginald GeoTge, private trainer to Corry at Blenheim, dose need Croupier’s achievements, and said that only once had he failed to win a place. His time in one race at Christ* church was only one fifth of a second below Plmr Top’s for a similar distance. Witness considered the horse had no excellent chance of winning the race for which he wins entered, He had beaten some of the best. Witness said that the seizure of the horse was a complete surprise to him. He did not consider there was any danger of the horse breaking down after the Stead Cun race. He was absolutely sound. Cross-examined, lie said it would not surprise him if the horse was found to be .suffering from anything after the way he was taken off the course at Riccaiton. It was ridiculous to sav that the house was wobbly after the Stead Cup. Plaintiff said that when he bought him he thought iso little of Croupier that he would rather have given him away than have taken him home. John Paterson asked him to take the yearling. Witness said: “All right, I will take him, and if he turns out any good, half belongs to you.” The circumstances in which lie came into possession of Croupier was described by the plaintiff. He had no intention of buying for himself at Paterson’s sale in January, 1930. He thought ,so little of Croupier at the time that he would have been very glad to have given him away, instead of taking him home. Paterson thanked witness for coming up, and said he would give witness this yearling. Witness was not at all keen to take it, but said l that he would take it, and 1 if it ever turned out any good, half of the horse would be Paterson’s. Croupier was in such n bad state when he got him that it was a long time before the' trainer did any good with him. Croupier had always raced in witness’s name. In the document of August 11th., 1931, he Was registering a partnership in the horse, 50 per cent to himself, and 25 per cent, each to James and John Paterson. Witness isaid that Croupier had cost him between £350 and £4OO before he won his first race at the Christchurch races i'n November Witness gave Paterson’s agent, Collins, a promissory novo for £l5O for the Patersons within a-quarter of an hour after the horse was taken. After the Stead Cup he saw Collins go up to Croupier and try to knock the boy off the horse. Witness went up and protested, but Collins had eight or nine policemen with him to stop witness doing anything." Collins took Croupier away, the horse being hot and excited, after the race, on an open lorry. Witness tried to get the Canterbury Jockey Club to interfere, but the officials were under the impression that the horse had been seized under a legal warrant. Counsel for defendants: So it was. Counsel for plaintiff: That is for His Honour to say. It looks more like theft. In cross-examination, witness said that he owed John Paterson 25 per cent, of Croupier’s winnings, but James Paterson’s 25 per cent, was wiped out by other matters outstanding between them, He had not rendered any account- to them. Witness said that the first letter definitely setting out the fifty-fifty basis was pent to Patefison in June, 1931. Paterson wrote back immediately, saying that lie had never given the horse to witness. This was the only difference he had ever had with Paterson. The hearing was adjourned till tomorrow .