ALLEGED SALE OF A RACEHORSE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2178, 18 September 1920, Page 3

ALLEGED SALE OF A RACEHORSE.

EASTON v. WRIGHT. JUDGMENT RESERVED. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., E. S. Easton proceeded against A. M. Wright to recover the sum of £2OO being the amount of a cheque ol defendant's drawn in favour of the plaintiff, and dated March lilh 1011, which, on presentation on July 2(ith, 1020, had been dishonoured. Mr-I. P. Innes appeared for plaintiff, and Mr A. M. Ongley for defendant.

The plaintiff, Frederick Spencer Easton, slated in evidence that on March 17th, 1011, he sold the racehorse, Stevens, to the defendant for the sum of £2OO, receiving a cheque for this amount in payment. He did not present the cheque at the hank until July 20th, 1020, when it was dishonoured. When witness sold the horse to defendant, he (defendant) asked him to hold the cheque until he was in funds, when lie would advise witness to pul it in. Witness said that he presented the cheque in July, as he knew that at that time defendant had several thousand pounds, having had a good win at the Wellington meeting. A few years ago witness said he was willing to return defendant's cheque if he go! the horse hack, hut defendant did not return the horse. Witness said he had mentioned the matter to him on a couple of occasions, and he. then made mention of a contra account. He had also written to him and notified him that he wonld present the cheque. To Mr Ongley: It was nine years since (ho transaction look place. Defendant was disqualified a few months afterwards, hut witness said he never took the horse hack, and it was never returned to his farm. He denied absolutely ever arranging to lease the horse to anyone, and in answer to further cross-examination saiil he never leased the hor.m to Trask nor gave it him. A paragraph in the (Sporting and Dramatic Review in TO 1.5 to the effect that the racehorse Stevens had broken down, and that, (he owner (Mr Easton) had made a present of the animal In his trainer (Mr Trask) he characterised as absolutely nut me. Trask trained horses for witness fur some time. Defendant had not Trained for witness for sonic years. He did not write to defendant in reference to the cheque since DMT until July of this year, fie denied that Jus reason for writing then was to fry and gel an admission from defendant, as tic knew that the account was Statute burred. Witness said ilia I (lie question of the account l>eing Statute barred never entered his mind. To Mr Innes: During ihm year the defendanl had offered him £101) to square the account, bill he had refused if.

This closed ihe plaintill's rasa, and Mr Ongley submitted that judgment must ho for defendant, a- the cheque was nino yours old, and therefore Stalulo hurrod. Ho coiilcndod L'urthor that after hearing the evidence In).' Iho delonoo, judgment "would ho in defendant s favour mi the morits ui' the oaso, which had .boon brought hy plaintiff purely as a hit" of spito. Tie called the defendant, Alfred Mitchell Wright, horsetrainer, who staled that in 1911 lie arranged to hay the horse, Stevens. .'(Tom plaintiff lor 1290, and pave him a cheque tor this amount. The cheque was to he held hy plaint ill’, hut no definite time was lixed as lo when it was lo ho presented. Subsequently witness was disqualified, and plaintiff mime and saw him, and 1 old him that" ho had hettei turn Slovens out on his (plaintill's) farm, and ho would destroy del (“inlands cheque. The horse was consequently relumed to plaiulilt s farm. Witness was afterwards working for plaintiff, and he (plaintiff) I (dd witness he could use Si evens lo ride in and out lo work. He did this for some weeks, and <>no day Trask, who was (raining horses in .‘Foxlon. asked him if Stevens was lor sale. He Ink] Trask he would ask I lie owner. Fast on. lie mentioned the mailer to plaintiff, who staled lie would sell the horse for £299. He delivered this message to Trask, hut lie laughed at the price, and said lie ■\vould try lo lease the animal. Subsequently Trask came and said that Easton had leased the horse to him. and had authorised him to take possession of the animal. Witness said he had been hard feeding the horse, and he warned the value of the feed, £35, returned to him. lids amoum Trask paid. In 1915, Stevens broke down, and was lired, and was afterwards again turned out on plaintitl s fill-in. Plaintiff had never made any application to him for the £299, and Avitness denied that he ever offered £T99 to square the matter up. To Mr limes: He avus disqua Idled for the two yearn on Angm-d 17th, 1912, for the late scratching of the horse The Hover, in the Grand National Hurdles. He was able to meet the cheque very shortly after he had given it to Easton. When he leeched Easton’s letter in July of tins year lie did not ans Aver it, hut handed it to his solicitor. Plaintiff told him he would destroy witness’ cheque when the horse was returned. The £ls he received from Trask avus for the feed the horse had con-

.sinned. To Mr Ongley: After he got Stevcns from plaintiff he raced him, am! credited plaintiff ' vilh uv( ‘ n, - v l K ’ r cent, of the winnings. William George Traffic stated that in 15)13 he leased Stevens for two year.-' from the plaintiff, who instructed him to get possession ol the horse from AN right, which he dm. He raced the horse, and Easton was pid either 15 or 20 per cent, of the

winnings. The horse broke down in Clirislchurcii, and on (he advice of ;i veterinary surgeon he was lired, and afterwards turned out on Easton’s place. Later on he was put in work again, but was no good, and one day Easton came to the stables, and asked what witness thought was best to do with him. Witness said he told Easton that he• didn’t think the horse would be any good, and the Isos! thing he 'could do would lie to give him to witness. Easton pulled out his wali-li, and said, “From now, live minutes past twelve, the horse is yours.’' Witness said he hacked the horse about for a while, and when he left Eoxlon for Woodville he gave him to a man named Robinson to hack about, and shortly afterwards got word that the animal had fallen over a cliff and had broken his neck. To -Mr Innes; The lease of the horse from Easton to witness was a written one. It was written out and signed by both parties in Mr Easton’s otliee, and witness posted it to the secretary of the Racing Conference for registration. Witness paid Wright the £ls to cover the cost of the feed supplied by him to the horse. Ho got a receipt from Wright for the amount, and when he showed this to Easton ho said, “This is a nice thing; if it got about we would all be disqualified.” He look possession of the receipt, and said he would burn it. Witness raced the horse at live meetings. The only prize money he won was for seconds and thirds, and witness paid Easton the percentage on these winnings, as arranged. In 11)1.5 Easton made witness a present of the horse, and a paragraph appeared in the Sporting and Dramatic Review to this effect.

This closed the defendant’s case.

Air Junes submitted that under the circumstances the debt was not St a lute barred, and quoted a case in support of his contention. Mr Ongley contended that the case -quoted by plaintiff's counsel wiis not, a similar one.

The Magistrate said that he would look into the authorities, but it seemed to Him that judgment must be for defendant. He would give his decision at Palmerston North.

In connection with the cam, ihc defendant, Mr Wright, wrote to the secretary of 1 he Racing Conference, inquiring if a learn of (lie horse, Stevens, from Easton to Trask’ had been registered, and a reply trout the Secretary (Mr Sellars) was received Just after the Court had adjourned, advising that the horse Stevens had been leased by E. S. Easton to W. G. Trask for a period of two vears, and that I lie lease expired on May 15th, .DJIS.