BREAKING-IN A THOROUGHBRED.

Manawatu Herald, Volume LI, Issue 4531, 15 November 1930, Page 4

BREAKING-IN A THOROUGHBRED.

('Concluded from page 2)

Easton later took it to the blacksmith’s Avhierc it avus shod. It was so quiet that he could carry.sheep or a sack of chaff on its back.

Pat Kauri gave evidence as to having delivered three bags of chaff at Robinson’s from Easton’s.

Walter Brown, ex-storeman, stated that he had been in the habit of supplying' R-obinson with, on an average a sack of chaff a week for six weeks during the period under review. Robinson then changed his patronage to another store. Could not say whether the feed was for Easton’s horse. There were several there. It could not have been for them all, but they were on the road a good deal. [Before placing defendant in the box Mr. Oingley outlined the evidence to be tendered at some length. He said that plaintiff’s claim was for feeding, stabling and breaking in the horse whereas any arrangement was simply for breaking the horse in. Robinson was a handy*man and had been employed by defendant for a number of years and lie had been in the habit of borrowing money off defendant and working it out. At the Trentham traces he borrowed £5 from Easton and when lie purchased line horse plaintiff asked defendant- to let him 'break it in for that amount and when he agreed he rushed around and showed his importance and hired a special truejk for the horse. Easton supplied, feed from time to time and when Robinson wanted moire lie used to go up and get it. After live months defendant could see the horse was not broken in and when lie discovered it in the pound he became dissatisfied and to oik it away. It was then tod poor to do anything with so he turned it out and when it picked up lie handed it over to a trainer named Trask, who bro|ke it in. Although the horse was taken away in July no claim was made until November when defendant sought the. retulrn of a racing saddle Robinson had in his possession and which his son was using. Sidney John Easton, farmer, said that Robinson bad acted as drover for him for a number of years. Several times he had borrowed money from witness and lie generally worked these amounts out. He said lie was away when the flood came and his wife asked Robinson to shift some sheep but his nephew did this before Robinson arrived. In any case the paddoefk did not flood much and there was no great, danger. He arrived home that night and the next day rang Robinson up and asked him to assist in removing some stock from Whirokino. They obtained boats and shifted the cattle to Pofi'outawhao and about a week later lie paid Robinson £3 for this woijk. He met. Robinson at- the races. He had beard that he Avas looking for Avitness and he sought him on the lawn before the first race. Robinson then asked for the loan of £5 which he gave him. At the sale he was not with Robinson who heard he had purchased a hoirse and made him an offer to break it in for the £5 he had borrowed. This Avas agreed to. The horse was then quiet enough to lead and Avas railed to Foxton in a cattle truck. Witness did the bidding himself and not Robinson. Witness did not as|k plaintiff to provide the feed and be gave details of the quantities of chaff and ■oats delivered at different times. When Robinson ran short be called at witness’s place in a gig and got more. He ’got the horse into fairly good condition at first but then ruined it for twelve months. Robinson had not ridden the horse more than once and witness had seen Robinson’s hoy bucked off on another occasion. When the horse had been impounded it Avas “as poor as a dog” and Avouldn’t haA-e brought a pound at a sale. It had been, kept, in a quarteraero paddock surrounded by a macrocarpa hedge and so starved that it had eaten the macrocarpa hedge and been poisoned. He had the horse returned to his place from the pound and Robinson agreed to finish breaking it Avhen it pielkcd up. When it got in better condition Robinson caught the animal and told Avitness to have if shod and delivered to his place. This Avitnfiss did hut on arriving at Robinson’s, Airs. Robinson told Avitness to take the horse aAvay as she wouldn’t alloAV her husband to ride it. The horse was then sent to Mr. Trask. Robinson had a racing saddle belonging to witness and he asked for it on several occasions a good while after the horse had gone but couldn’t get it. Robinson handed it over to witness after lie received a legal letter lioAvqver. lie said “Here’s your saddle.” Witness asked for the cirsinglc and he thi'CAV in some old geai'. Witness first heard that Robinson vvas claiming the amount disputed at the conclusion of last court day Avhen witness had ap"pcared in connection Avith a farm dispute. Robinson had gone up to Mr. Bergen and Mr. Ongley after the hearing and said in the hearing of others, “Well, Barney, I’ll be engaging you next court day and .Sidney John Avill Avant your services, !Mf. Ongley.” Previously witness had had horses broken in fog £5, but he expected them to be looked after for that. Robinson usually borroAved Avitness’s hacks and on one occasion had hired two of them to the military camp at Foxton, but Avitness did not get anything for them. Air. Bei-gin: Do you think Robinson Avould put a sixteen-year-old boy ou a horse if it was not

broken? —Yes, his son is a professional jockey.

Mir. Borgia denied that the boy Avho had ridden the horse avus the jockey and Avitness replied that Avhichever boy it was lie was a good rider. 'Robinson bad never ridden the horse Avliile drafting stock 1 . There had been no suggestion of him training the horse for the track. He had had enough of that with San Pedi'o. Possibly he would have leased the 'horse. Visited Robinson’s about once a Aveek but did not always see the horse. Did not see the horse for a. long time before it was taken away. Robinson when ■asked how the horse avus getting bn said he had been too busy to do much with it and Avhen it was taken away said he would top it oIT Us soon as it picked up. When did you pay the £3 for the ilood Avork? —About a. Aveek after. Robinson sent- up to the house for it. He mevefc* gave me a chance to OA\ r e him anything much longer than a Aveek, especially if .(liere Avert! any races about. Tie had never soul in an account for droving. .Witness did the bidding at the sale. Why would he Avant Robinson to do it? Tic could look after his own affairs and anyhow he was heifer known than Robin-

Mi'. Bergin: You consider this a “pul up job” on Robinson’s pari —T don't owe him one penny. Do yon think it fair to leave a horse for five months for £5? —I think it fair to leave the horse there until it was broken. The horse Avas so starved and dog poor it could hardly drag its legs to Webb’s farm.

You suggest tlml Robinson misappropriated the feed you are supposed to have supplied?—l won’t say that.

Witness said he had not been able to ride the horse until it returned from Tiraslk’s.

Mr. Bergin: How was it you could lead the horse to the blacksmith's and tie it tip if it wasn’t broken in?

Mr. Ongley: The horse could In led when, purchased at Trentham

Michael Ileliir, farmer and exbivrse trainer, of Taikorea, considered £5 a fair charge for breaking in a thoroughbred and £3 for a hack. He .used to charge those amounts. He had given a horse to Robinson to look after, but had provided i,t with the best of feed and warned Robinson not: to give the feed to any of the other horses. lie visited the. place once a week and saw his horse.

To Mr. Bergin: His horse was in good condition when lie took it home and he was quite satisfied that. Robinson had looked after the horse fairly. Easton’s horse avus not too good when witness saw it. lie paid Robinson £1 per week and found the feed.

'.William George Trask, horse breaker of Porouta.whao, said that £5 was a reasonable charge for breaking in a thoroughbred. He had taken charge of Easton’s horse last April when it. Avas not half broken in. After three weeks he was able to get a man named Bradbury into the saddle. The horse bad a cut leg when lie got it and he considered it had been spoiled. Lt had a bad month and was hard to handle as it would kick, buck and jump aivay. Witness had it eight weeks before he returned it and charged £3 because Urn oAvner had already paid £5 to have it broken in.

To AIT. Bergin: It was possible to “month” a liorse tAviee if a trainer kept at it. It should not take longer than a month to break in a thoroughbred. He Avould not have expected a broken horse that had been turned out from July to April to kick and behave like Easton’s ' horse did. Bradbury had a'idllen the horse three times before Avitness mounted it, and on one occasion had been on its back for live hours.

To Mr.' Ongley: He would have charged £5 to break the horse in jif he had received it in the first place and made a good job of it. lan Bradbury, horse breaker and drover of Manalk'au, gave evidence Vm similar lines to rfpre.vious Avitness and detailed his experiences in breaking the horse in. He said it wouldn't steer, bueked a lot and it Avas not possible to get round the loff side, lie would have charged £3 to break it in.

Mr. Bergin: How long would you have kept it for that? —Until it Avas broken it. It would have been ■foil on grass and chaff. John Burr, farm manager, also considered £5 a fair charge for breaking in the horse and said be had received that amount for similar work up uutil two years ago. Although about a lot he bad never seen Robinson or his boy riding Easton’s horse.

In summing up the S.M. said that there had been a lot of contradictory evidence submitted. Easton’s story had been boirne out to a certain extent however, by certain payments having been made in regard to the Hood work and of the £5 at Trentham when there had not been any discussion regarding any Avork. It Robinson held not borrowed the money then what had it been paid for? There had been no contract as there should have 'been had the horse not been broken in Avithin a reasonable time or returned. If the horse Avas to have been held over a long period such as 25 weeks there should have been a contract. It seemed as if the case had been brought out. of spite. 'Robinson had certainly not proved his claim and he Avas not going to make a contract for him and judgment Avould accordingly be given for defendant with costs £2 8/-.