OWNERSHIP DISPUTED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 203, 20 April 1932, Page 5

OWNERSHIP DISPUTED

(Press. Assn.—

j croupier case SECOND STAGE OF LEGAL • ' BATTLE TO DECIDE QUESTION CORRY GIVES EVIDENCE

-By TelegrapU— -Copyright).

AUCLAND, Tuesday^ The second stage of the legal proceedings regarding the ownership oL ~ the racehosse Croupier, which was -seized at Riccarton last November, be-"'" gan in the Supreme Court before Mr " Justice Herdman to-day. John Joseph Corry, of Blenheim,' , i - sued John and James jPaterson, mer-° chants, of Auckland, asking for a de- ; • claration of owhership, a dissolution- ' of partnership, and the taking of ac-;'-counts. He also askedvthat a receiver ■ * be appointed, and claimed £1000 for'' wrongful removal and detention of ;; the horse. The defence is a denial of part-; _ nership, defendants asserting that*'* they had always been the rightful owners of the horse. They denied" that they had wrongfully seized it, -- and claimed half the prize-money re- •* ceived by Corry from August 1 to November 14, 1931. They maintained that possession of the horse was "* given Corry in accordanee with his I promise to look after the horse for them. They asked the Court to de- .1 clare them the owners of the horse. Up to August 31, 1931, Croupier won It five races, for which plaintiff was paid approximately * £413, less deductions. *; From August 1 to November 14, 1931, he won approximately £1225. Thought Horse a Gift i , Counsel for Corry said that in Jan- :- uary, 1930, defendants held a sal'e of • ■* ■ their bloodstock, and on their behalf Corry bought three horses. In recognition of Corry's services they asked -- him to take as a gift a yearling by - Surveyor. This yearling became • known as Croupier. Corry fully be- ' lieved it was a gift. Croupier was ,;- nominated as Corry's property, and met with some success. Later the defendants wrote saying that they had"' never given the horse to Corry, and claimed ownership. . ; Counsel said the seizure of the horse was high-handed and arbitrary. Thomas Reginald George, private trainer to Corry at Blenheim, described Croupier's achievements. His time in one race at Christchurch was only one-fifth of a second below that of Phar Lap for a similar distance. Witness said the seizure of the horse was a complete surprise to him. Cross-examined, witness said it would not he a surprise to him if the horse was founci to be suffering from anything after the way he was taken off the course at Riccarton.

Plaintiff 's Evidence The circumstanes iri which he eame into the possession of Croupier were described by plaintiff, Corry. He had no intention of buying for himself at Paterson's sale in January, 1930. He thought so little of Croupier at the time that he would have been very glad to have given him away instead _ of taking him home. Mr. ■ Patersoii thanked witness for coming up and • said he would give witness this year- ' 1'ng. Witness was not at all keen t-0 take it, but said he would take it, and if it should turn out any good, a half ' interest in the horse would belong to the Patersons'. Croupier was in such a bad state when he got him, witness continued, - that it was a long time before the trainer did any good with him. Croupier had always raeed in witness's name. In the document of August 11, 1931, lie was registered in the partnership in the horse, 50 per cent. to, himself and 25 per cent. each ,to* James and J ohn Paterson. Witness - said Croupier had cost him hetween. £300 and £500 before he won his firgf. race at Christchurch in November.;,. Witness gave Patersons' agent, Col-. lins, a promissory note for £150 for the Patersons' a quarter of an hour after the horse was taken. .. . . Seizure of Horse After the Stead Cup he saw Collins go up to Croupier and try to knoek the boy off the horse. Witness. went up and protested, but Collina had eight or nine polieemen with him to stop witness from doing anything. Collins took Croupier away liot' qrfd excited after the race in an open lorry. Witness tried to get the Canterbury Jockey Club to interfere, but the officials were under the impression that the horse had been seized ' under a legal warrant. Counsel for defendant: So it was. Counsel for plaintiff: That is for His Honour to say. It looks more like theft. Under cross-examination witness said he owed John Paterson 25 per cent of Croupier's winnings, but James Paterson's 25 per cent. was wiped out by other matters standing hetween them. He had not rendexed any account to them. Witness said that the first letter definitely setting out the fifty-fifty basis was sent to the Patersons in June, 1931. Paterson wrote back immediately saying he had never given the horse to witness. This was the only difference he had ever had with Paterson. The hearing was adjourned until to-morrow.