BREAKING-IN A THOROUGHBRED.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4531, 15 November 1930, Page 2

BREAKING-IN A THOROUGHBRED.

CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE BUT NO CONTRACT. -JUDGMENT FOE DEFENDANT. The greater part of the monthly sitting of the local Magistrate’s Court on Thursday was occupied in hearing a horse-breaking dispute between.two well-known local residents. Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., presidi'd. Mr. M. B Bergin appeared for the plaintiff (Mr. Frederick Robinson) who claimed. £25 from Sidney John Easton, fanner (Mr. A. M. Ongley), for breaking-in, slablinf and feeding a horse belonging to defendant. Mr. M. B. Bergin, in outlining Ihe case, said that the claim was for handling and generally attending to a horse belonging to defendant who had agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of £1 per week for such services. Plaintiff, who was now a licensed liorse trainer, had for many years, done delcmlanl’s droving work and atlendcd generally to his stock. In January 1929 both parlies went to the Welling!on races and while there attended a horse sale at which defendant purchased a Jive-year-old unbroken thoroughbred horse. Defendant arranged with plaintiff to take charge of the horse and break it in and prepare it, generally as a racehorse. Plaintiff unloaded the horse at Foxton and look it Lo his place where he kept it, breaking it in until July. To do this he had to rent a small paddock ami purchase feed. He bad previously attended to another horse, for defendant on similar terms. After .July the horse had ■been turned out, plaintiff arranging with defendant to hand it over lo a licensed 1 miner. The liorse was delivered to 'Webb’s farm by plaintiff but later he caught the horse and had it shod. Defendant then took charge of the animal. Plaintiff sent in two accounts for the money due to him, but it was suggested by defendant that ha had paid him £5 and that was aJI his work was worth, but .counsel contended that that amount had been paid for droving work and reselling sheep and cattle from Hood water and was paid over before the horse had been purchased. Frederick Robinson, horse trainer, in evidence stated that he had worked for defendant as a drover for a number of years and in January 1929 lie bad attended a horse sale at Trentliam with defendant. Witness did the bidding for Easton who purchased a liorse and told witness to take i barge of il and to see that it was taken .straight home. Witness arranged with the auctioneer to deliver Hie horse to Foxton where it arrived on January 28th. Witness look delivery, at the station, but left defendant to sign for delivery and pay freight. The horse was taken to witness’s place. After they arrived home front the races defendant suggested paying plaintiff £5 to break the horse in, but witness said he couldn’t do the work for that and said he charged £1 per week for his services while defendant would have to find the ‘feed. Easton then said “Go on then,” and that was all that was said. He spent live months breaking tlie horse in and the animal was thoroughly quiet when he had finished. Witness had to pay 1/6 a week to a man named McEwen lor the use of a paddock for the animal and bad to purchase a bag of chaff a week and about 281 b of bran a fortnight on which to feed it. Du the 19th March defendant vmnt three bags of chaff along as witness had told him lie could not go on buying chaff all the time. After that Easton provided only one other bag- which lie threw on to the horse’s back one day when lie was at the house. Other farmers in the district paid witness £1 per week to train horses. Mr. 'B. Heppuer had. paid him £2O for handling a horse for 20 weeks and also found the necessary feed. Mr. ITehir, of Taikorea also paid Jiini a similar sum and he had just taken charge of a horse, for Mr. S. Austin. He had no agreement arranged yet in the latter connection, but did not anticipate any trouble in that direction. Previously he bad had one of defendant’s horses for four weeks and he had paid him £5. Witness had sent two accounts to defendant for • the amounfc due to him but had never received any money. He had received £5 from Easton in January hut that had been for work done at the end of November when he bad rescued bis sheep from the Hood. Easton had been away at the time and bis wife had rung witness up and asked him to do ■something to save the stock from the Hood. He had worked from 4.80 until 9 pan. pulling the sheep out of the water and managed to save 120 from drowning. He also went out to WMrolkino and swam cattle out and took sheep and cattle to Foroatawliao for defendant. Defendant had paid him £5 by cheque ami £5 in notes for this work and breaking in the previous liorse.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ongley, ■witness said he had been instructed by defendant to break in and feed the horse. His usual charge for breaking in was £5 for a hack, Imt it depended on the temperament of the horse. He could not treat a thoroughbred the same as .an ordinary hadk. Mr. Ongley: I submit the usual price for breaking in a thoroughbred is £s.—No mail could do it for that.

How long does it take you to break in a thoroughbred?—lt depends on the disposition of the animal. Between two and three mouths.

Did you ever break in horses at j the figure mentioned?' —Yes. W

What is the highest price you have • received for the work?’ — £5 for ordinary hacks or draught horses.

Have you ever been paid more?, —Yes, the late Mr. V. Robinson paid me £B. \ Have you ever contracted to break in a thoroughbred horse? —■ No. I had Mr. Hehir’s horse though. You have been droving for some time haven’t you? —(For 15 years. And during that time you have been borrowing money continually from Mr. Easton? —I have never borrowed 1/- in my life from him.

Well ho will say that you have been in the habit of borrowing money from him and working it out. —I have a banking account of: iny own and have not borrowed money for years. You attended the Wellington races with Easton and stopped witli his friends?—Yes. And borrowed £5 from him there?—No. He owed rne the money for the Hood work.

Asjked how long - the work took! him, witness said that he had spent between three and four days on the woijk and tour hours on the first night. Mr. Ongley: But didn't Mr. Easton’s nephew get the sheep out of j the flood water before you arrived Unit night ? —The sheep had been taken out but had wandered back into the Jlood water again. Witness had to shift them about half a mile.

And you charged £5 for that? — No, the Whirokino farm was under water too, and I ' shifted cattle from there and took cattle and sheep to Poroutawliao for the £5. Did you arrange a price? —We never arranged a. price for any droving work. Defendant would say, “Well, what’s that worth?” Witness would say “Say a liver,” and defendant would possibly say “Make it £3.” He was always a £1 or so on the right side. Witness said he asjked defendant at Trentham for the money due to him for the flood work and he had paid him £5. He also paid him £5 before that, but no mention had been made on the occasion of the first payment of the flood droving. Me was not borrowing money. Never volunteered to break the horse in for £5 at the sale. Easton saw the horse on an average of three days a week. He had no account for horse feed. Had been keeping horses for years and always paid cash for the feed. The horse was thoroughly quiet when he finished with it. Had no trainer’s license for six months last year and there had been no arrangement for training the horse for the track, but a pnmiise of it. In November, 1930 Easton wrote to witness through his solicitor asking for the return of a saddle and other gear. Witness then made a claim per telephone for the amount in dispute and later by letter. Defendant sent his nephew for the saddle and bridle and witness told him to tell Easton- to come and get it and square, up like a man. Told the solicitor about the claim when he spoke to him with regard to the saddle. Easton waited until he •knew witness was away on football business and then rushed it away in his ear.

Mr. Ongley: But there was no football in November. Didn’t you hand the saddle to Easton? — No. I was not there. 1 was away. Witness said he sent out two accounts for the money, the first being in December, and four months ago instructed his counsel lo take action.

Questioned as to the condition of the horse, witness said that it was well broken in before it was turned out, but naturally after six months it would be fresh. It had a beautiful mouth and no man born could mouth a horse twice.

Mr. Ongley: Plaintiff says that lie saw both you and your boy on Ihe horse once only and on each occasion the horse bucked. Witness: I’m sure he never saw mo on a bucking liorse because I couldn't stick. . He admitted that the horse bucked at a piece of paper one day on the Motuiti Road when he was in company with Easton.

Didn’t the horse get into the„ pound on one occasion?— Yes. Easlon was at my house at the time and gave my boy the money li. get it out. Easton had 100 sheep impounded only a little before and had to pay £2O damages. To Mr. Bergin witness said that it would take only a week or a fortnight to break a draught horse in, but it depended on tlie disposition of the animal. A racehorse would probably take at least six weeks to break. Had never received a demand from Easton for the re-payment of any loan. They bad previously been good iriends. After the liorse had been delivered lo Webb’s, defendant asked witness to go up and catch, it oue day.. Witness experienced no difficulty in doing so and left the liorse tied up to the fence and (Concluded on page 4).