PONY RACING.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9411, 3 April 1909, Page 2

PONY RACING.

A FLASHLIGHT ON THE SPORT. “This is something like a judgment,” remarked Dr. A. M*Arthur, S.M,, in his civil sitting ton on Thursday, when introducing his reserved decision in the case of Beuth v. Dwyer, Plaintiff, according to the claim, is the owner of a chestnut mare named “Mutiny,” five stall shoes and plates, two pairs of boots and horse rings. Defendant, it was stated, had possession of the horse and accessories, and had wrongfully and without legal justification refused to deliver the same to the plaintiff, who accordingly asked for judgment for possession of the horse and accessories, and in case possession could not he had, he askea for payment of £4C, the value of the horse, and £2 2s 3d, representing the value of the accessories, and also £2O damages for the alleged wrongful detention. ‘ This case,” said his Worship, “is somewhat interesting as throwing a flashlight on that ‘so-called sport—pony racing. A hotel nightporter of this city was anxious to become owner of a pony for racing purposes, and instructed an undischarged bankrupt of Masterton to purchase him a good one. The said undischarged gentleman and the defendant, just one week after his bankruptcy, purchased ‘a good one’ for £l2. He says he got the money to purchase from a bicycle dealer, who just one week ago had judgment given against him in this conit for £l3O and costs. The defendant now claims that he bought the horse on shares for himself and the nightporter, and now seeks to charge him £2O for one-half of the horse, which was bought for £l3, In addition to this he charges his partner with -all the keep, etc., of the horse, making a total of £73 18s 6d in abonc three months, and acknowledges the receipt of £24 15s. On the other hand the hotel porter claims to have paid the defendant no less than £4B 15s from rhe 28th November to the 22nd December. The horse won a stake of £l7, which the defendant has retained. The hotel porter’s financial man was his brother—a labourer, who advanced the money paid, and to whom the porter assigned all his interest in the horse in consideration of the advance of several sums amounting to £22.”

His Worship was of opinion that defendant began with a fraud in charging his partner £2O for one-half of a horse which cost £l2. No reliance was placed on defendant’s evidence by his Worship. The present plaintiff sued as the owner of the horse which was assigned to him by his brother, the nighc porter, in consideration of £22 advanced. “I trust both of them,” concluded Dr. M‘Arthur, “have had a lesson in horse dealing for pony racing purposes. ’ ’ Judgment was given for the possession of the horse and accessories. In case possession could not be had, ordered to pay plaintiff the sum of £32 2s 3d, being £2O the value of the horse, and £2 2s 3d, value of the accessories. Damages for £lO for detention of the horse was also allowed.