A RACEHORSE DEAL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 2184, 2 October 1920, Page 3

A RACEHORSE DEAL.

B. S. EASTON v. A. M. WRIGHT. .ftTKIMBXT BOR DEFENDANT. 1 >]jAINTIBFS PROSECUTION BOR PERJURY DIRECTED. The reserved Judgment in the case of F. S. Easton, v. A. M. 'Wright, which was heard on September 17th, at Boxton, was delivered by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., at Palmerston on Thursday afternoon. His Worship summed up the evidence as follows: —“This is a claim for £2OO upon a dishonoured cheque, which wtis given by the defendant to the plaintiff: on March 17th, 1011, in payment for the racehorse Stevens, which Hie defendant had purchased from the plaintiff. The cheque was not presented until July 2(itb, 1020, when its payment was refused by the Bank on account of its being ‘a stale cheque/ The defendant Ims pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and farther that the horse had been taken back by the plaintiff, and that the cheque should have been destroyed, as the consideration for it had Jailed. The plaintiff stales that the cheque was not presented immedialely .because the defendant bad asked him not to do so because he -was not in funds, and that the defendant- had never let him know when lie was in funds. His counsel had contended that the Statute of Limitations would not start to run until the defendant had unfilled the plaint iff that he could present the cheque. The cheque, however, was not post-dated, and the plaintiff could have presented it at any lime, or asked for payment, of the purchase money. The fact that he allowed the defendant some latitude was not sufficient, in my opinion, to postpone the operation of the statute, The cheque should have been presented within a reasonable time, nl any rate within six months, and (lie time would have run from then. In my opinion, therefore, the debt is statute barred."

“I think further, however, that the evidence shows (hat (he plaintiff's action in presenting the cheque P' o< ‘ c sllsU 'P practice, it; is _ defendant was disqualified sonK! ,| ''f|| c '' v months alter the sale of the evidence, in my opinion, shows 'Nidi the plaintiff (hen took (he horse' 4, back and dealt witli it as bis own. He leased it to one Trask, who raced it in Ids own name, and it got into place money on three occasions. Trask stated that tiie lease was in writing and registered with the racing authorities, and that ho paid twenty per cent, of Ids winnings to (he plaintiff, and farther, that the plaintiff, after the horse had broken down, presented it to the witness Trask. Trask’s evidence is corroborated by the defendant, and also by the Turf Register, and 1 understand that the lease ‘Easton to Trask’ was actually registered, was for a period of two year.', and expired on May loth, 1915. Tins was not actually proved in Court, but the information was obtained later by letter from the secretary of the racing authorities, and I have no reason to doubt it.

“Easton, therefore, knew when lie presented this cheque that he had called the sale off, when the defendant was disqualified, and he, therefore, was guilty of fraud in presenting the cheque some seven years after ho had taken the horse hack. Further, he, in my opinion, committed deliberate perjury and attempted wilfully to mislead the Court in denying that he had taken the horse back, that he had leased it to Trask, and that he had subsequently presented it to Trask. As this is the view I take of his evidence, 1 would fail in my duty if I took no official notice of his conduct. I have, therefore, directed his prosecution for perjury. Judgment will he for the defendant with the usual costs.”