RACEHORSE RANGIHAETA.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 458, 29 May 1909, Page 2

RACEHORSE RANGIHAETA.

THE QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP. At the Palmerston sittings of the Supreme Court yesterday before his Honour Mr Justice Chapman the re-hearing of the Rangihaeta racehorse case, Sklenars v. Robinson, was commenced. It will be remembered that the case came before the Court at its last sittings, but the jury failed to agree. The claim was for possession of the horse or its value £4OO, together with winnings £220 and damages £xoo.

Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for the plaintiff and Mr T. Wilford for the defendant.

The following jury were empanelled ; —J. G. Hunter (foreman), G. H. Osgood, H. J. Richmond, D. Wilson, C. Bowden, F. Jepson, J. Dury, W. J. Harris, G. E. Suisted, A. K. Mitchell, J. J. M. Isaacs, H. W. G. Ashwell.

William Joseph Sklenars, plaintiff, said he was formerly a blacksmith at Oroua Bridge and was the real owner of the racehorseTwo years ago the horse was put into ,trailing and in February, 1908, a liaiuer named Mullins bought it on a promisssory note whh the understanding that if he could not pay up witness would have the horse back by the end of June. In June Mullins did not pay up, but witness allowed him to take the horse to a meeting in Wellington in July as he had got him pretty tit. In August Robinson, the defendant, put in an appearance and alleged that Mullins was going to “ rook ’*■ plaintiff for the horse. Mullins, according to witness, had gone away and taken everything with him. Defendant offered to go down to Wellington and ' get the receipt out of Mullins. Witness decided to let defendant go, and paid his expenses. Defendant said he got the receipt out of Mullins, but had heard that Mullins was trying to sell the horse in Wellington. He then suggested that witness give him (defendant) a receipt for the horse, so that he could go and demand it from Mullins. Witness agreed to the receipt, and defendant then suggested that Mr Reade, solicitor, of Foxton, be got to make out the receipt so that there would be no flaws in it. The amount was for £l5O. Defendant then went straight away for the horse, and next day witness received a wire from defendant asking for money to pay the carriage of the horse to Foxton to defendant’s place. Witness went for it but defendant wouldn’t give it to him. Witness had tried since to get the horse, but defendant had e refused to give it up.

To Mr Wilford: The receipt made out to defendant giving him the ownership of the horse was a bogus one entirely. Witness did not know what was in the receipt; he was not there when it was made out. There was not a bookmaker at the back of witness financing him in the two Supreme Court trials. The horse had started twenty-two times while witness had him, and he won five races.

Thomas Henry Simpson said that Robinson, the defendant, had come to him in August, 1908, asking for a “ fiver.” He had been sent by Sklenars, plaintiff, and stated that he was going to' get the horse from Mullins for Sklenars.

William Parlane described a conversation in which defendant had talked about the case, and in which defendant had said that if he were asked where he got the money he could say he saved it in a moneybox. Daniel Mullins, labourer, said early last year he had the hotse in training with an understanding that he could buy it if he could find the money. When witness had the horse in Martinborough defendant came and said if the horse wasn’t returned to Foxton he would be arrested. Witness had lost his receipt for the horse. The receipt had been kept in a pocket book in his breast pocket. When they got back to Foxton defendant and plaintiff told witness the horse had been sold to defendant. Defendant said he paid for the horse by a post-dated cheque, and witness was to have /10 out of it from plaintiffs. He didn’t get it. Later on, in witness’s presence, defendant told a man named Walsh that he had paid for the horse with money saved up by himself and his wife. Witness signed the affidavit giving up possession of the horse. He read it over but didn’t take an oath. Mr Reade was not there when the affidavit was signed, but came in a couple of hours after, and asked witness if it was all right. Witness then got £lO from defendant out of the horse’s first win. Witness then alleged that on the second day of the last Palmerston races defendant came to him and • offering to buy a galloping pony for him for £SO, adding, “ Don’t go into the case with Sklenars; he hasn’t got any money.” Walsh was present at the interview. To Mr Wilford : He didn’t know who was the owner of the racehorse.

James Gibson said he was in Martin borough with the previous 'witness. He had seen Mullins with his receipt on the night defendant arrived. .Witness was also present at Foxton when defendant said he was going to pay for the horse with a post-dated cheque. John Walsh, labourer, alleged that in conversation in December defendant told him that if be were to be asked in Court how he paid for the horse he would say his wife had saved the money. Witness was also present when the affidavit was signed, and Mr Reade was not there, nor was

there any oath 'taken. Witness was also at the Palmerston autumn meeting;, and was present at an interview between defendant and Mullins. Defendant, it was alleged, said : “It’s no use going with Skleoars; he hasn’t got any money. I know where there’s a pony that I can get for half a hundred. He can run half a mile in forty.” Witness said they didn’t want a pony.

THE JURY FIND FOR PLAINTIFF. JUDGMENT DEFERRED. (Bv Telegraph—Special to Herald.) The evidence of Walsh concluded the case for the plaintiff.' The following evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence; Chas. E. Brewer, hotelkeeper, Martinborough, said defendant and Mullins met in his bar on one occasion. Defendant showed him a receipt for the horse Rangihaeta and wanted to sell the horse to witness for £ffoo. Henry Webb, of Foxton, remembered Mullins having the horse at his stables. Sklenars came to witness’ place and said the horse was his and he would pay all expenses. To Mr Cooper: Defendant obtained the money from his wife who obtained it from an endowment left her by an old friend, a aMr MacPherson. Mr Reade saw the money handed over to plaintiff. Lawrence Reade, solicitor, of Foxton, said the document signed by plaintiff was drawn up by witness in plaintiff’s presence. Plaintiff heard it read through and signed it. Later on plaintiff stated to defendant it witness’ presence that he could have a half share in the horse for ,£SO. Late on Saturday night Mullins came to him and swore an affidavit transferring the horse to defendant. Geo. Lees, barman at the Manawatu Hotel, said defendant met plaintiff in the bar and asked him if he had come down to collar the horse. Plaintiff said he had not. Wm. Geb. Tozer said he heard Sklenars say to Robinson that he had fixed up with Reade and was going to have nothing more to do with the horse. Frederick Robinson, defendant, said he paid ,£4O in cash for the horse and also paid all accounts owing on him. The receipt for the horse was made out by Mr Reade. When he raced the horse, the only interference he had from plaintiff was when he raced the ■ horse at Otaki, when witness substantiated his claim to the horse. This concluded the evidence. In his address to the jury Mr Wilford said if Rangihaeta had never won a race they would never have heard of the case. Plaintiff had tried to sell the horse at any price when it was in his possession but directly it began to win races in possesion of another man plaintiff made strenuous efforts to get the horse back into his possesion. The final issue in the case was, was the receipt genuine or a “crooked” one?

Counsel for. plaintiff said he admitted that the receipt was a serious matter. The defence said that the receipt was a swindle, but he thought evidence of his witnesses proved that the receipt was drawn up at the suggestion of defendant and therefore he was the instigator of the swindle. His Honour, in his address to the jury, said there was no doubt that in this case there was absolutely false swearing on one side. It was not for him to say on which side it was. His Honour then reviewed the evidence at length and concluded by saying ' he would leave the issue to the jury’s own common sense. After a retirement of 3 hours and 20 minutes the foreman announced that they were unable to arrive at a decision, but they had a majority of eleven to one. His Honour said they had been considering their verdict longenough for a three-fourths majority verdict to be taken. The jury therefore found for the plaintiff as follows : (1) That the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the horse Ragihaeta ; (2) that plaintiff is entitled to the horse or the value of the horse, ,£400; (3) plaintiff is entitled to ,£IOO damages. Mr Fitzherbert, on behalf of Mr Wilford for defendant, asked that judgment be deferred as he wished to argue on some legal points. His Honour agreed to defer judgment till Monday next and appointed a receiver to take charge of the horse. The horse was entrained from Foxton this afternoon.