A HORSE TRAINER'S TROUBLES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 145, 28 September 1910, Page 7

A HORSE TRAINER'S TROUBLES

A FORGETFUL DEFENDANT. \ The Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr. H. S. Fitzherbert, commented strongly on the unreliability of the evidence tendered yesterday in a civil action in the Magistrate's Court, wherein Richmond Johnson, of Sentry Hill, 'horse 'trainer, sought to recover from James Dunn, ol' Moaoia, Greymouth, the sum of £29 Is 6d, being for training the horse Rarato:nga, feeding, shoeing and doctoring him, for a period of about three months from December, 1909, onwards. Mr. Quilliam appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilkes, instructed by Messrs. Guinness and Kitchinginan, of Greymouth, for the defence. Mr. Quilliam, in briefly outlining the plaintiff's case, said that unfortunately the defendant had, to put it mildly, forgotten some very important communications made by him before the action was brought. He referred to certain passages in the evidence of the defendant, which; had been taken on commission at Greymouth, and was to the_ effect that Dunn, was a sawmiiller, residing at Moana. For some time prior to December 16 of 'last year he had been working at. Mokau, and when he left there he brought a colt with ihim. Saw (Palbridge in Waitara. He had known the man before. Paltridge told him he had a horse in , training, and as he (Dunn) did not want to bring the colt farther on account of tlhe danger of his being knocked about, arranged with Partridge to look after the colt and have him trained. The arrangement was that defendant was to buy a rug. put a set of shoes on, and get the colt's teeth fixed up, which Partridge said would cost about £ 1 15s. Gave him £2 for the purpose. Except for this, Paltridge was to bear all outgoings, including shoeing, feeding, nominations and acceptances, and Paltridge and defendant were, to halve the winnings after making allowance to Paltridge for the outgoings. Before arriving at Waitara he knew Paltridge and a -man named Corrigari had been disqualified for life, but Paltridge told him that Corrigan had had his disqualification ■removed. He also told Dunn that he was applying to have his disqualification removed, and that it would (be removed in about a month. He would then undertake the training himself. Thus there was no mention of the expenses of training, as the agreement was to train and bear all expenses. He had never given PUltridge authority to employ, anyone to train the horse or to pledge Ids credit in any way with re- 1 spect to the horse. He sent.no money to Paltridge till he received his telegram on March 21, 1910. He tihen. wired him £4, as he thought he might not have the money to nominate thi horse. With reference to Paltridge's tele'gram and letter in February, he knew he was not liable for any portion of the trainings expenses, so he sent no money. The £4 mentioned above the only suin he sent to Paltridge. He .had sent 'no: money to Johnson, as he did not know him in the matter. He never wrote or wired to Johnson, as to why the horse did not start in (Patea. The plaintiff said he received the horse from Paltridge, to train for Mr. Dunn, at, £2 a week. On March 29 he wrote to Dunn, recommending that' the horse be turned out, as he was not | worth going on with. In reply, Dunn wrote, "Turn horse out; letter following." On March 23 Dunn telegraphed (copy produced) to the secretary of ;thfc. ' Patea Racinig Club ' authorising him (Johnson) to nominate Raratonga for the Patea meeting and to collect any winnings. He produced a further tele-

gram from 'Dunn to the secretary of that club giving the horse's pedigree, colors, etc., and giving the trainer's name as Johnson. Dunn brought the horse to Waitara, and Paltridge vat. asked to get someone to train him'. Witness, with a meaning smile; No, I should not be surprised if Paltridge said. that.

In further ,the witness said the horse had not raced at Patea because he had 'a cold, and if Paltridge sttid it was because the horee had been injured whilst in a railway truck, he was wrong. Mt. Wilkes: Where is Paltridjge? ' Plaintiff: He's in Haweira. I wenit down and tried to get him to come here for this case. Mr. Wilkes: It is a pity he is not here, as someone . is. telling deliberate lies. The..defendant thinks someone is trying to swindle,Wm,,and he is not quite sure whether it is you or Paltridge, or both 'of you. Now, wasn't it qu,ite natural that... the owner should, have telegraphed, the ..colors 'and pedi-' gree of the horse to the fatea Racing Club?'' ~ / ' Mr. Quilliam:..And the name of John-! son as his trainer? He said in his i evidence that he had no knowledge of. Johnson at all. ' The Bench: Of course, that is an, ab- j solute falsehood, and one for which he can be indicted if it's material, and apparently it is material. Mr. Wilkes: Is Johnson "his" trainer, your Worship, or the trainer of the Quilliam: It's the same .thing, i Your client-says.he didn't know Jo'hn-i son in the matter, yet he writes a long [ letter to 'him, and- wires to the_ score-1 tary of a club that Johnson is his trainer. Mr. Wilkes: But does that apply to the preliminary expenses, or' only to the actual training? Mr. Fitzherbert: How can I Ibelieve a word' the defendant says? Doesn't "a little leaven leaven the whole lump?" In answer to further cross-examina-, tion, the plaintiff said he hadn't much | to do with Mtridge, but he had al-1 wavs found 'him a decent sort of chap. | Mr. Wi'lkes: Which is the better man ■ to sue—Paltridge or Dunn? . J Mr. Quilliam said the question was irrelevant, for Paltridge was an agent for a disclosed principal. ] The following letter from Dunn to Johnson was put it:— _ "I was very much surprised to hear that Paltridge has not paid you any money for the horse's keep, as 'he wrote and told me that he had paid you £isix weeks ago, and as for the first set ■•■ of shoes and the of ,his teeth done up, I paid him myself before I left Waitara; and it seems to me that there is something wrong somewhere, as he was supposed to pay you up ( to the end of January for the horaes keep. He wired and told me that the horse was hurt shunting, that was why he did not start at Patea. I dont Low why he wanted to tell lies about tliings for A s f or .that £4 he paid you, I wired that to h™. I think the best thing for you to do is to turn the horse out; and; if you dont mind, you can see that no Mm comes, to him and I will eend you some ££ n«t w ? k. and tell me what you think or tne horse, and if 'he k worth spending any m Mr. I wnkes,° ? who called evidence, Hid the defendant's case was that ie

arranged with Paltridjge to train Dunn's horse, and to pay all outgoings. Winnings Were to be halved, and although it appeared that late in the day Dunn wrote and wired to Johnson, it was not shown that Paltridge had ever been authorised to employ anyone as a trainer. There seemed to foe a good deal in the telegrams produced by Mr. Quilliam, for they were somewhat contradictory of the defendant's evidence. Mr. Quilliam: You put it mildly, Mr. Wilkes submitted t!hat Dumn was liable only for grazing. . The Magistrate said it . was t quite clear that Dunn knew Johnson was trailing the horse, that he was engaged by Paltridge on Dunn's behalf, aif'd' that the latter owed the debt. , |ilr. Quilliam added that it was pretty'clear ithat had the defence known ot telegrams, the case would not been defended. ■The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said that Dunn, in his correspondence, admitted that Johnson-was'his trainer, and. also that he owed him money. Paltridge mig'hl; not have been fair to Dunn, but judgment for plaintiff would not prejudice Dunn's right to bring am action, against Paltridge. The defendant had ibeen very unwise in swearing that he did not know Johnson. Judgment would be ior plaintiff for the amount claimed, and costs.