SPORTING.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 June 1917, Page 8

SPORTING.

•' \ OWNERSHIP OF WAIMATOA. ' IA! civil action of interest to racing men was heard in the Wellington Su: preme Court last week, before Mr. Justice Chapman. The plaintiff was James McLaughlin, horse trainer, of Trentham, and the defendant Joseph Grant, farmer, of Manukau. The statement of claim set out that by a memorandum dated February 8 of this year, the defendant, in consideration of payment of £l, placed under offer to the plaintiff until 8 p.m. on February 13, the racehorse Waimatoa for £525. The defendant affixed the signature "M. Williams" to the memorandum, and at the time the plaintiff understood the signature to be genuine, and that the name-"Williams" was either the defendant's true name, or an assumed name in which he owned and trained the horse. The plaintiff accepted defendant's offer by telegram before February 13, and before 5 p.m. on that day he tendered defendant, the balance of the purchase money, and applied to the defendant specifically to perform the said agreement. This the defendant refused to do. The Court was asked .to order the defendant specifically to porform the agreement, and plaintiff also claimed £SOO damages against defendant for wrongfully withholding the delivery of the horse. For the defence it was admitted that the defendant gave the memorandum, but it was denied that he received a consideration of £l. All the allegations in the atatoinent of the claim were denied, except that in which the defendant admitted that he signed the document "M. Williams." The main point at dispute concerned the real ownership of the horse. Mat Williams, horse trained, stated that he .owned Waimatoa, and had given Grant authority to sell only up to a certain date. His Honor, in giving judgment, said that if any action lay against Grant it was for a breach of warranty. He felt inclined to believe the evidence of Williams, and he could not find that there was proof of fraud in the preparation of the document and perjury. If the evidence of the defence' were true, Grant had overstepped his authority, and his Honor could not find for plaintiff in the face of the evidence. Judgment was for the defendant, with costs.