CROUPIER CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 22 September 1932, Page 5

CROUPIER CASE

APPEAL BY COKRYI COURT RESERVES ITS DECISION (Per Press Association — Copyright .) WELLINGTON, Sep. 21. The appeal of Jolilx Joseph Corry, merchant, Blenheim from the judgment of Mr Justice Herdman, delayered iu Auckland in May, in the action Brought by Corry against John Paterson and James Paterson, mediants, Auckland, was continued yesterday. Counsel, for appellant, leave to read, and.adduce in evidence: (1) Notice of change of ownership of half-share in Croupier, from Corry to the Patersons; (2) The farm of registration of their joint interests in the horse. These documents . had; not been produced in the previous hearing in the lower court, at Auckland, but since that hearing had been discovered by the secretary of the racing conference amongst the records of the conference. Counsel for respondents resisted the application, but the Court thought they , should be admitted, and they were' placed before the court. Counsel for appellant submitted that Corry was entitled to claim a halfshare in the horse, by' reason of the gift to him by the Patersons, when lie first received the horse and also by reason of further arrangements, which! took place between the parties in August of the following year, The Patersons wore selling their stable of horses-;- ' in January, 1930. Croupier was then a young colt, and not disposed of. Corry was asked by Paterson to take the colt, and do what he liked with him.; He took it to Blenheim, and for eighteen months trained and prepared it, at his own expense. Corry always contended that if the colt proved to be of any value, he would give hack to the Patersons a share in it. When the colt turned out a success the Patersons denied CorryV ownership in the horse, and claimed it for their own. Correspondence passed between the parties, and in August, 1931, a change of half-interest in the horse from Corry to the Patersons was registered with the racing authorities. At that time, the horse had not won any race of any great distinction. When Corry first received the horse, it was of very little value, as its breeding was not popular. - 1

Counsel for the appellant contended that it was not till the Patersons learned of the horse Croupier’s first success, in September of 1931. that they first repudiated the arrangements that were arrived at in August of that year. Independently of the question of the ownership of . the horse, there was the partnership as to/'its running, and therefore the seizure of the horse bad amounted to a breach of that partnershin. thus entitling Corry to damages., Finally, it was submitted that the Court should direct its attention to the excellent prospects of further success that were shown by Croupier, at the time that it was seized and taken to Auckland. The loss resulting from that seizure should entitle the appellant to substantial damages on that account. «

Counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant’s claim to a half-share in the racehorse Croupier could be based only on a (presumed gift or upon a contract.. In order to prove the gift, the appellant, Carry, must prove the clear intention on the part of Paterson Bros. 'to renounce all interest in the horse. The evidence, he said, showed clearly that not only had the respondents never, expressed such an intention, but the appellant, Corry, never believed that a." gift of the horse had been made to him. The only evidence on the question- as to whether Corry derived any interest in Croupier by the contract with Paterson Bros, was tlie notice of the change of thb ownership of the half share m Croupier from Corry to the Patersons. The respondents- he submitted, were driven to enter into this document by a fear of disqualification by the Racing Conference for not disclosing their ownership in Croupier. That document, lie contended, did not, however, stop them from raising the question of the ownership subsequently. As far as the question of damages was concerned, it was submitted that Paterson Bros, had a legal right, either as owners or as co-owners, to seize the horse, as they did. • After hearing counsel for the appellant in reply, the Court reserved its decision.