"SHARP PRACTICE."

Taranaki Daily News, 1 October 1920, Page 5

"SHARP PRACTICE."

A RACEHORSE DEAL. PERJURY CHARGE TO FOLLOW. By Telegraph.—Press Association. i Palmersfcon N., Last Reserved judgment in the case of F. S- Easton v. A. M. Wright, which was heard on September 17, at Foxton, was delivered by Mr. J; L, Stout, S.M., this afternoon. His Worship summed up the evidence as follows: "This is a claim for £2OO upon a dishonored cheque given by defendant to plaintiff on Maxell 17, 1911, in payment for the racehorse Stevens, which defendant purchased from plaintiff. The cheque was not presented until July 26, 1920, when paj'ment was rtfused by the bank on account of its biiing a stale cheque. The defendant lias pleaded the statute of limitations, and further that the horse had been tiiken back by plaintiff, and that the cheque should have been destroyed as consideration for it had failed. "Plaintiff states that the cheque was; not presented immediately because defwidant had asked him not to do so, because he was not in funds, and that defondant had never let him know when he was in funds. His counsel had contended that the statute of limitations Would not start to run until the defc ndant had notified plaintiff that he could present tho cheque. The cheque, however, was not post-dated, and plaintiff could have presented it at any time, or asked for payment of the purchase money. The fact that he allowed defendant some latitude, was not sufficient, in my opinion, to postpone the operation of the statute. The cheque should have been presented within a reasonable time, at any rate -frithin six months, and the time would have run from them. My opinion, therefore, is that the debt statute was barred: "I think further, however, that the evidence shows that plaintiff's action in presenting the cheque at all was a piece ol' sharp practice. It is admitted that defendant was disqualified for some few months after the sale of the horse, and the evidence, in my opinion, shows that plaintiff then took the horse back and dealt with it as his own. He leased it to one Trask, who raced it in his own name, and it got into place money on 1 three occasions. Trask stated that the lease was in writing, and registered with the racing authorities, and that he paid 1 20 per cent, of the winnings to plain- j tit?, and further, that plaintiff, after . the horse had broken down, presented it to witness (Trask). Trask's evidence is corroborated by defendant, and also by the Turf Register, and I understand that the lease, Easton to Trask, was actually registered, and was for a period of two years, and expired qn May 15, 1915. This was not actually proved in Court, but information was obtained later by a letter from tho-' of the racing authorities, I have no reason to doubt it. "Easton therefore knew when he pre- , sented the cheque that lie had called the sale off when defendant was disqualified, . and he therefore was guilty of fraud in ■ presenting the cheque, some seven years after he had taken the horse back. Fur- ; tlier, in my opinion, he committed dclib. , erate perjury, and attempted wilfully f to mislead the Court in denying that he j had taken the horse back, and that he ( had leased it to Trask, and that he had ( subsequently presented it to Trask. As j this is the view I take of his evidence, £ I would fail in my duty if I took no ( official notice of his conduct. I have therefore directed his prosecution for perjury. Judgment will be for the defendant with the usual costs."