THE “ RANGIHAETA ” CASE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 450, 23 February 1909, Page 3

THE “ RANGIHAETA ” CASE.

A'QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP. PECULIAR COMPLICATIONS. JURY FAIL TO AGREE. A somewhat complicated case was heard at the Supreme Court on Saturday before his Honour Mr Justice Chapman, when Wm. Joseph Skleuars claimed from Fred Robinson the possession of a racehorse Raugihaeta, or its value together with the winnings £220, and damages

The following jury was empanelled A. Seifert (foreman), Chas. Sutcliffe, Wm. Bason, Joseph J. Chandler, W. W. Dick, G. U. Slack, J. Hurley, W. T. Prouse, F. Anderson, F. Harriman, A. J. Andrews, Arthur Lawrence. Mr H. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr T. Wilford (Wellington) for the defence. Wm. Joseph Sklenars, plaintiff, stated that he first got Rangihaeta by way of a swop some five years ago from Harry Simpson, of Oroua Bridge. He pul the horse into training two years ago, and in February ot last year sold him to Mullins on a promissory note, the understanding being that witness should have the horse back in June if he was not paid for by that time. Mullins could uot pay for the horse in June, but witness allowed him to take the horse to the Wellington meeting in July, as he was very well and had a winning chance. Mullins went away, and shortly afterwards defendant told witness that Mullins would “rook” him for the horse, and offered to go after him. Robinson said “You gave him a receipt, didn’t you?” Witness replied “Yes.” Robinson said “ I’ll get that out of him. Witness then offered to pay all expenses if Robinson would go, and some time afterwards he gave Robinson £$ 10s to go to Wellington. Subsequently Robinson returned and said that Mullins would be home in a day or two with the horse, but wanted some money to pay his board. Witness gave Robinson £3 ns 6d to send to Mullins, but the latter did not turn up, and Robinson suggested that witness should give him a receipt for the horse, so that he could demand it from Mullins. This was agreed to, and Laurence E. Reade, solicitor, of Foxton, was instructed, and wrote out a receipt for £l5O. Robinson then went away to get the horse, which was subsequently sent to his place at Foxton. Witness went to Robinson to get the horse to send to Johnson, the trainer, but Robinson said “Oh, the horse is alright, you leave it here.” About a mouth later witness met Robinson at the Family Hotel, and the latter said he had both the horse and the receipt, and did not intend giving up either. The horse had since won several races.

To Mr Wilford : He did uot tell Webb that if he would cry quits on an account with Mullins for and give him more that he would give up the horse. He was certain that the receipt was for £ls°Mr Wilford produced the receipt which showed that amount was for Witness; “I did not read the receipt ; I simply signed it” He was uot on the unpaid forfeit list of the Wellington Racing Club. He asked that the stakes should be impounded when Rangihaeta won at Otaki but they were handed to Mrs Robinson, in whose name the horse was raced, and he had not given notice to impound the winnings elsewhere.

To His Honour : “The reason for giving the receipt was not discussed before Mr Reade.” For the defence- Mr Wihord called Thomas Simpson, who said he owned the horse at one time, and “ swopped ” it with another from Sklenars. Witness said he gave Sklenars £ 5.

William Parlane, of Oroua Bridge, described a conversation with Robinson in a cab in Palmerston, in which Robinson said he had saved up the money to buy the horse, in a money-box.

To Mr Wilford: He knew nothing about a syndicate of bookmakers who were trying to get the horse by financing plaintiff. Peter Johnson, trainer, Foxton, said Robinson came to him some time in August, and wanted him to train Rangihaeta. Robinson said he had got the horse, and had gone into partnership with plaintiff. Witness said that Robinson did not own it; it belonged to Sklenars, and witness refused to train it.

To Mr Wilford; He had no interest in the case, although he was to train the horse if Sklenars had it.

Constable Woods said be spoke to Robinson on January 22nd about giving up the horse. Robinson said, “I’ve got a receipt for the horse and the horse is mine, and if Sklenars puts his hands on the horse or me I’ll give him in charge.” Robinson said that about six months ago he got the horse from Mullins. Sklenars sold the horse to him, and gave him an order to get the horse. He said he had paid Webb Bros, over £6O for Sklenars, Podmore’s account for shoeing and the Wellington Racing Club’s entrance fees. He said he gave ,£4O to Sklenars also. To Mr Wilford: He knew nothing against either plaintiff or defendant, except that defendant had a small conviction against him.

Laurence Edward Reade, who said he had drawn up the receipt between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff agreed that the price was £ioq, and the receipt was read

over to him. He told witness to hand it over to Robinson, saying that he was heartily sick of the whole business, and glad to get rid of the horse. If he hadn’t ne would have shot it. Robinson was not present when the receipt was prepared.

Jonas Webb said plaintiff had arranged with him to put up Mullins and the horse, but had uot paid him, and he owed him £6O at the time the receipt was signed. On the day previous to the signing ;of the receipt plaintiff offered to let him have the horse for and a clear receipt for the sum owing. Witness, however, declined this method of settlement and referred him to Robinson, who accepted the offer. He saw the defendant hand £SO in notes over to the plaintiff.

Fred Robinson, defendant, said he had bought the horse from the plaintiff paying in cash, and agreeing to settle the account for the keep of Mullins and the horse. He had paid the in single notes, bis wife’s savings. All the winnings bad gone to his wife. The horse was now in his wife’s name, and witness entered it in various races on her behalf. He was not present when the receipt was prepared. D. Mullins who had had charge of the horse for some time, said the horse was sold to him by Sklenars on a p6stdated cheque, not on a promissory note. Defendant promised to pay witness a “ tenner ” out of the horse’s first win, and Sklenars was to give him a “ tenner” on the sale. He was then to forfeit all interest in the horse. He got the money from Robinson, but Sklenars refused to pay him, saying he had no money. To Mr Cooper: He got the money from Robinson in December. He had lost the receipt for the horse, given him by Sklenars. He got drunk one night and the next morning the receipt was gone.

Mr Wilford : You say the horse was sold to Robinson on a post dated cheque ? Witness: That is what I understood. Mr Wilford : Robinson had no banking account at the time the sale was made.

Wm, George To/er said he was talking to Robinson in the street at Foxton when plaintiff came up and said: “I have come to see you about that horse. I have instructed Mr Reade to tell you I will have nothing more to do with any partnership. If you hadn’t bought it I would have shot it.” This conversation did not take place at Reade’s office, but in the street.

Mr Wilford, addressing the jury, said that before plaintiff could succeed in the case he had to prove that the receipt signed by him was a lie when he signed it; that he had entered into a swindle with Robinson, to swindle Mullins out of the horse. “He tells you that he signed the receipt because he desired to work a little game with Robinson,” said Mr Wilford, “and he therefore bases his whole right to possession on a document he admits to be fraudulent.” If the receipt was a swindle arranged between plaintiff, and defendant it was strange that the defendant had not been present when it was prepared. “ Sklenars on his own showing,” concluded counsel, “ started out on a swindle to get the horse from Mullins, and we suggest that he is trying to get the horse from Robinson in the same way.”

Mr Cooper said that there was no swindle. Mullins had the horse under an option of purchase which he was unable to fulfil. He had gone to Wellington to have a last try at getting the money at the meeting there. He didn’t come back, and in order to make him return the horse, plaintiff had arranged with defendant to give him a receipt so that he could go and claim it.

His Honour, summing up, said “You have heard the evidence of both parties, and have also heard admirable addresses from two legal gentlemen, who appear to be experts in matters of this kind. I don’t know that anything I can say will help you much.” On one side they were told that, anticipating some difficulty in getting the horse from Mullins, who apparently claimed some title to it, plaintiff had agreed to give defendant a receipt so that a new man might come on the scene with what appeared an obvious title, and so Mullins might be got out of the way. The receipt was prepared by a solicitor in plaintiff’s presence, but the solicitor knew nothing of the transaction and defendant was presumably not present when it was prepared. On the other hand they had evidence saying that the offer made to Webb had been repeated to defendant, who closed with it and handed over £so in notes to the defendant. “If,” continued his Honour, “you distrust the evidence of plaintiff and defendant, and those immediately about them, you will certainly have to seriously consider whether there is any ground for distrusting Mr Reade, who stated that he was in no way interested in the transaction. Mr Reade says the actual instruction to make out the receipt came from plaintiff, who had got the receipt, and stated the amount.”

The jury, after being out the full four hours, failed to agree.