SPORTING.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1709, 10 March 1888, Page 2

SPORTING.

TIMARU RACES. First Day. The Autumn Meeting under the auspices of the South Canterbury Jockey Club commenced on Thursday last. Tho weather was due, and the attendance good. Results ; —T Timaru Hurdle Race (Handicap), open, of 89 soys. ; about two miles. Second horse 10 sovs from the stakes. Mr H. Lunn’s ch g Tres Sec ... 1 Mr Armitage’s ch h Golden Butterfly 2 Mr P. Jones’ hr g Mounteagle ... 3 Master Agnes and Malvina also started. Won by three lengths. Time, 4mia IJsec. Dividends, £ll2s and £1 12s 6d. District Plate (Handicap), district race, of 40 sovs ; one mile and a quartar. Second horse 5 sovs from the stakes. Messrs Hobbs’s g g College Boy ... 1 Mr Ouwie’s b g The Brewer... ... 2 Mr Lee’s ohm Nelly, 7st 31b ... 3 Mountain Deer, Derby, Derwenter, and Sir Julias also started. A well contested race; won by a length. Time, 2min 12aec, Dividends, £6 15* and £3 19s. Handicap Time Trot (open), of 30 sovs; 3 miles. Second horse 6 sovs from the stakes. Optional saddle or harness. No weight under 10st, Pull and go. Mr M. J. Taggart’s b g Maniac, aged scratch ... ••• 1 Mr 0, Hammond’s b g Jumbo, Byears, 35sec 2 Mr McCallum’s b m Grannie, aged, 35sec ... ... .. 3

Lady Gray, Molly O’Rourke, Jefls, Guardsman, Silence, Random, Viva, and Kitty also started. The race proved a Rift to Maniac, who won by a quarter of a mile. Time, Bmin 37s0c, Dividends, £2 9s and £1 16s.

Txharu Cup (Handicap), open, of 160 sovs ; miles. Second horse 20 sovs from the stakes. Messrs M. and C. Hobbs’s b h Hermitage... ... ... ... 1 Mr Butler’s b h Marlborough ... 2 Mr Brown’s br c Wakatipu ... ... 3 Won by a couple of lengths. Time, 2min 40|sec. Dividends, £3 18a 6d and £4 5s 6d.

Novel Race Handicap, of 25 sovs j 1 mile. Mr P, Stock’s b g Pippin ... ... 1 Mr Rutherford’s btn Miss Webster ... 2

Only two started. Won easily by a length. Time, Imin 53aec. Dividends, £7 and £3 3s. District Welter, of 30 sovs; second 5 sovs; 1 mile. Mr Yonng’s br o Sir Julius ... ... 1 Mr Lee’s ch rn Malvina ... ... 2 Mr Cowie’s b g Talebearer... ... 3 Goldfinch, Mounteagle, Media, and Seacliffe also started. Won by half a length. Time,lmin 47£sec. Dividends, £3l3a 6d and £2 11s. Flying Handicap, of 40 sovs; second horse 5 sovs ; 6 furlongs. Messrs Hobbs’s g g College Boy .... 1 Mr Stephenson’s br ra La Rose ... 2 Mr E. T. Rhodes’s b c Kimberley 3 St. Agnes and Opera also started. Time, Imin 17sec. Dividends, £3 17s and £5 13s. Second Day. On the second day the attendance was very small, but the weather was fine. The following are the results : Handicap Hurdle Race, of 50 sovs; second horse 5 sovs from the stakes; d'stance 1£ miles, over 6 flights of hurdles. Mr Jones’s b g Mounteagle, B*t 101 b (Kingham) 1 Mr Armitage’s ch h Golden Butterfly,

9afc 91b ... ... (Cotton) 2 Mr Rutherford’s b g Azira, lOst 31b (Bishop) 3 Time, 2min 57sec. Totalisator—lnside £75, £2O on the winner, dividend £3 8s ; outside £63, £l4 on the winner, dividend £4 Is.

Handicap Time Trot, of 25 sovs; second horse 5 sovs from stakes j distance 2 miles. Mr Primmei’s b g Random, 80aec (Owner) 1 Mr Staodiah’s g m Lady Grey, 40sec ( Webster) 2 Mr Taggart’s b g Maniac, scratch (Owner) 3 Four more competed. Time, 6min 15sec, Totalisators—lnside £122, £2l on the winner, dividend £5 4s 6d ; outside £74, £l3 on the winner, dividend £5 2s. S.C.J.O. Handicap, of 120 sovs ; second horse, 15 sovs; distance IJmiles. Mr Stephenson’s br ra La Rose, 7«t 71b ... (Price) 1 Mr Butler’s b h Marlborough, Sat 71b

(Holmes) 2 Messrs Hobbs’s b h Hermitage, Sat 121 b (McDonald) 3

Pour more ran. Time—2min llsec, Totalisators—lnside £9l, £ll on the winner, dividend £6 16s 6d ; onlsicle £69, £9 on the winner, dividend £6 18s, Selling Race, of 35 sovs; distance | mile. Mr Hay’s ch f St. Agnes 9at s!b (Smith) 1 Mr Scotl’s oh ra Goldfinch, Bst 111 b (Rosewarne) 2 Mr Rutherford’s Mias Webster, 9st 111 b ... (Price) 3 Two others ran, and four were scratched. Time, Imin 19|*ec. Totalisators —Inside £163, £73 on the winner, dividend £2 ; outside £lO5, £45 on the winner, dividend £2 2s,

Hack Race, of 10 sovs ; distance J mile ; catch weights. Mr Cowie’s Talebearer ... (Thomas) 1 Mr Stock’s Pippen ... (Hogden) 2 Mr Wedderell’s Impulse ... (Walden) 3

Three more ran. No time was taken. Totalisators—lnside £ll6, £54 oa the winner, dividend £1 18s 6d ; outside £42, £l7 on the winner, dividend £2 4s. Consolaiion Handicap, of £3O j distance £ mile. Mr Sheenan’a Erin-go-bragh, Bst 10ib (Mollroy) I Mr Rutherford’s Derby, 7st 12ib (Williams) 2 Three more ran, Time, I rain 46|soc. Totalisators—lnside £209, £9l on the winner, dividend £2 Is ; outside £34, £l6 on the winner, dividend £1 18s. This finished the races.

Y.R.O. AUTUMN MEETING. The Autumn meeting of the'Yiclorian Racing Club was continued at Flemington on Thursday. The attendance was poor. For the Champion Race, 3 miles, there were three starters—oon. J. White’s Abercorn, Nelson, and Enfilade. The horses finished in the order named, Nelson being beaten by a length, Enfilade four lengths behind. The time was Grain 15sec.

J-IL" "S3 >«!' RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Geraldine—Thursday, March 8,1888. [Before Captain Wray, R.M., and W. U. Slack and A. H. Brisco, Esqs., J.P.’s] CITIL CASES. J. Mundell v. W. R. D. Lawson—Claim £94 15s 8d on a dishonored promissory note and £2O for money lent. Defendant did not appear. Plaintiff having proved the claim, judgment was given for the amount with costs.

On the application of plaintiff immediate execution was granted. D. Mcllwraith v. T. Baxter—Claim £26 6s 5d for board and lodgings. Defendant put in a set off of £33 10s, stating that £5 of this was for work done, and the balance was an overcharge in the account. After hearing the evidence of both parties, judgment was given for £6 14s 6d and costs. ALLEGED ILLEGAL IMPOUNDING. Caleb Ezekiel Sherratt was charged on the information of William Walton with illegally impounding one horse belonging to him on February 25th, 1888. Mr J. Hay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Raymond (of Messrs White and Co.) appeared for defendant. Mr Hay said the action was brought under section 9 of tho Impounding Act, 1884.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Hay said the real issue in the question was whether tho Domain Board had the right to re-enter, take possession of the’park, and forfeit the lease, which was

a three years’ lease given to Mr Walton in December last, and was not yet expired. Mr Hay indicated at considerable length the evidence that would be led. He called

William Walton, the plaintiff, who deposed that he was a storeman in the employ of Mr K. H. Pearpoint, and held a lease of reserve No. 306 from the Geraldine Domain Board (lease produced). The reserve was vested in the Domain Board, He had entered upon possession of the land in question under that lease. On the 21st February last had one horse grazing on this land. On that day the horse was taken out by Mr Sherratt, and put into an adjoining paddock. Next day he (witness) put the horse back. The lock was next taken off and the horse impounded by Mr Sherratt. Served a written notice upon the poundkeeper (produced), and released the horse, paying Is. Subsequently signed a complaint before a Justice of the Peace.

To Mr Raymond : Waa at present in Mr Pearpoint’s employ. Took the lease from the Town Board himself. The land was a domain of about 20 acres. It was laid down in grass. Some of it, a narrow strip which runs round the oval used as a cricket ground In the centre, had been lately broken up. The land had been in grass for some time. Gave Mr Pearpoint permission to break up the narrow strip. He used it for training a horse on. On the 21st February, when the horses were taken out, he got instructions to put them back. The instructions were from Mr Hay. Mr Pearpoint wrote to Mr Hay. Witness saw the letter. Was in possession before the lease was signed some little time. On 15th December sent this letter (produced and read) to the Town Board. It waa in Mr Pearpoint’a writing. Witness signed it. On 16th December received a letter from Mr C. E. Sherratt requesting witness to sign the lease, or the Board would take repossession ; also calling upon him to grub the gorse and do away with the training track, or they would take repossession. [Mr Hay here pointed ;out that that letter confirmed the agreement Mr Walton had received from the Board.] The land was securely fenced by a gorse fence. The stray gorse was grubbed up by Mr Groves. Mr Groves waa paid by a contra account by Mr Pearpoint. [The press copy of a letter sent to Mr Walton was here read, declining to ratify the transfer of the lease to Mr Pearpoint, and stating that the Board would consider the transfer when the work mentioned had been carried out.] On the 24th January received a letter from the Domain Board stating that be (witness) had made breaches of several of the conditions of the lease, and giving him notice that unless these conditions were complied with the Board would re-enter. After that Mr Pearpoint continued to pasture his horses on the reserve, and train on the track. On the 18th February, 1888, received a letter notifying him that unless the training of horses was stopped by a certain time the Board would take re-

possession. On 21st February received a notice that the Board had taken possession, and any stock found there afterwards would bo impounded. Also, that Mr Pearpoint had received a similar notice, and could get his stock by applying for it to Mr Sherratt, After that witness’ horses and cattle were turned out, the gate locked, and possession taken by Mr Sherratt. On Tuesday, 21st February, drove in the cattle after being taken out by Mr Sherratt. Got in by breaking the chain Sherratt had put on the gate. After that Sherratt impounded the cattle. Had spoken to Mr Maslin. Did not say to Maslin that ha did not know why the Board troubled, as he (witness) had nothing to do with it. To Mr Hay ; Hid had stock there ever since he took the reserve. Had the full control over it. Never gave Pearpoint a document giving him the right to put stock on it. Mr Groves trimmed the fences. They had been kept in proper order the whole time. The running track was about three-quarters of a mile round and about three yards round. Mr Crocker trained the horses on it, not Mr Pearpoint. R. H. Pearpoint, merchant, Geraldine, deposed to gn-ging horses on this reserve. Had an arrangement with Mr Walton. Had not exclusive right. Hal a certain amount of control, but not a written agreement. Their agreement was that each should contribute towards the rent of the reserve according to the number of

head of stock each had on it. Ths fences were bad when they took the park, but they were pretty well cut now. To Mr Raymond : Mr Walton had not paid him anything for the trimming of the fences yet. Most of the stock in this reserve were witness’. The horse Mr Walton had did not belong to witness. Had no interest in it whatever. Crocker

was training one horse for witness. Could

I not say who locked the gate w hen Sherratt ' took possession. Could not remember saying “ We will not give up possession.” Timothy Herlihy, poundkaeper at Geraldine, deposed that on the 25th Feb. a horse of Walton's was impounded by Mr Sherratt. One shilling was paid as a fee. The horse was delivered to Mr Walton. Witness received the notice (produced). To Mr Raymond: Have had a considerable experience of gorse fences. These fences wore trimmed rather roughly. The grubbing was partly done. Could not say the grubbing was well done. To Mr Hay; It was usual to grub fences and cut them after harvest. To the Bench: Do not know what state the fences were in when the lessee took possession. J. P. Kalaugher, laborer, deposed to knowing the fences in question. In last December a great many gaps were in the fences. They were in a great deal belter order now than they were in 12 months ago. To Mr Raymond : Might have told Sherratt that he (witness) could not give any opinion about the fences. Told him so last night. W. Walton, re-called, said at the time of the pounding the rent due was paid up to date. The fences were kept in good order.

To Mr Raymond : On 16th December was told to pat the fences in good order. When he took the land be refused to sign the lease unless the fences were pu *■ into good order. Before opening the defence, Mr Raymond said Le wished to cJI the attention of the Renoh to the Act under which the Domain Board was incorporated. They had no power to grtnt a lease. The lease was purported to be signed by the Chairman of the Domain Board. The Aot under which the Domain Board Com-

tnisaioners had the authority to control those reserves took away the right to ). ase them, and vested it in the Governor alone. He was sure the Bench would a »ree that that being so, and the Board Iningin the nature of a borough incorfi waled and having special powers, they h \d gone outside thsir authorised powers, a>d it was therefore ultra vires. These

cts could hot be enforced against a c rporation. Whenever a body entered into a contract without having the power :o do it that contract was not binding upon the corporation. The Board also wwe not in the strong position of a corI 'ration. The Domain Board waa rmrely a delegate appointed by the G)vernot to control the Government rrserves. The Act under which they ware delegated did not give the Board a right to lease in any. It took the power of leasing the lands away, and vested that in the Governor alone. With regard to the agreement, his learned friend laid there had been a breach of covenant. They had to establish a breach of conditi id before the right to enter arose. If they established that the condition! bad been broken—that there had been a breach of those conditions—they would ask the Bench to hold that immediately upon the breach of covenant by the lessee hie interests were defeated by that breach, and the lessor could take adv adage of that breach. They had to prove that breaches of these conditions had been made. However, be thought they would be able to proye that the fences bad been kept in a most disgraceful state, Mr Raymond went on at considerable length to quote the law upon the subject. For the defence he called

0. E. Sherratt, who deposed he was Clerk of Court and Clerk of Qeraldine Towq Board. The land leased was a recreation reserve, and was brought under the provisions of the Public Domains Act by the Order-in-Council (produced). On the 24th February, 1887, the powers were delegated to the Domain Board to hare control of this reserve. The Geraldine v Town Board was incorporated under tht*V Town Districts Act 1881. Produced the T minutes of the Domain Board showing their haying obtained the control of this reserve. Oo February 28th, 1888, an appointment was made to him, vesting him Commissioner of Crown Lands. This was followed up by a resolution by the Board that he act in that capacity. At the time Walton was asked to sign the lease the fences wanted trimming very badly, and the gorse wanted grabbing both inside and outside the park. The work was done by C, Groves at the eld Domain Board’s expense. He took poa* session, but no lease was signed then until the new Board got control. Had ; prepared specifications for hundreds of fences, Sines the notice oa 16th Decern* her to Mr Walton the fences bad not been put in good order. The fence adjoining the Government ground was about the worst that be bad seen. All gorse fences , should be trimmed before the gorse sheds, . otherwise they made trouble. These were not done before tbs gorse shed. Told Walton of it particularly. The grubbing was done very badly. The gorse was growing right out in the paddock. Took repossession of it on Tuesday, February 21, and entered into possession of the land. On Tuesday night saw Pearpoint’s cows in his yard. On next morning saw them in the park. Went and saw the gate. It appeared as if it had been lifted. Got a blacksmith to fix it so as it could not be lifted. Went to take the cattle away, and Pearpoint said he would struct him, and used his best endeavors < to do so. Pearpoint went away and witness put the cattle in his yard. On Friday found the chain cut, and the horses and cattle put in again. On Saturday went and unlocked Mr Walton’s lock, drove the cattle to the pound, and put on another lock. Produced the minutes of 28th February appointing him as the Board’s delegate. The Domain Board did not give authority to Mr Mon* dell to seal the lease. It was sealed by him. [Witness read the minste of the Board in which the resolution was passed to call on Mr Walton to carry out certain con* ditions and sign the lease, and put the. fences in good order.] To Mr Hay : On 18th December the fences bad not been put in good order. After the notice of December the fences vi ere trimmed. They were net fairly trimmed. A considerable length bad been well cut. No farmer in the would pay for the work. When Walton asked the Board to ratify a transfer to Mr Pearpoint, the Board declined to do so on consideration of the state of the fences and because of 'the track. The fences were not all put in good order. The Government owned the property next to where the fence was cut badly The fence now was not in better order * than when the lessee first took possession. J. Mundell, auctioneer, Chairman of the Qeraldine Domain Board, being sworn, stated he had no authority to sign the lease put id. The Clerk said it was the usual thing to do. He had consider* able experience in gorse fences and hedges. The fences round the domain were a spoilt job. Were badly trimmed. Were very irregular in the trimming, In some places the gorse was more broken than cut. Hardly thought any grubbing . was done. Autumn was generally the-, time for trimming. Some people trimmed twice a year. The autumn was generally the time when gorse sheds. It should be trimmed before now. To Mr flay ; The fences were not in better order than the average farmer’s fences in the district. The fences were better before trimming than after in some cases. He signed Walton’s lease, as he thought he would carry oqt his agree* ment as he should. The length of the gorse growing by the fences was from three to sixinches.

H, Morrison, laborer, said be had bad experience in gorge cutting. Had been 15 or 16 years cutting fences. Knew the domain fence. The fence was very roughly out. Ten or fifteen chains of the top was nut taken off at all. The grub* . bing was not half done. It had been j shaved off about an Inch in the ground/* and the roots were left in. The gone grew out in fome places very near half a chain.. The worst was near the Government ground. The skimming off would not stop the growth. Fences should be i trimmed in November or December, w They shed in the spring. To Mr Hay ; Did not know the state of the fences when Walton took it. Made an inspection that morning. Some of th»y growth was very thick. To Mr Raymond : Made a thorough inspection.

J. Hay, a laborer in Geraldine, deposed to having had considerable experience in gone hedges. Knew the domain fence. Mad* a close inspection of it that morning. The cutting-? was rough, and the grubbing was not done at all. The grubbing was of no service. To Mr Hay ; Did not know the stats of the fence when Walton took possession. Did not think the grose growing beside the fence would seed this year. Mark Burridge, laborer, gave coroborative evidence as to the state of the fences. C. B. Sherratt, recalled, said there was no difference between the appearance of the fence that day and on the 13tb JFebrnary. - This was the case, and Mr Raymond stated that in, addition to the grounds of the defence set up from the fact that Mr Sherratt ‘had impounded the horse after the breach of the conditions contained in the agreement, he intended to show that the Board had no power to grant a lease of,the reserve, such power resting with the Governor alone, and also that the agreement being improperly executed was not binding on the Board in any case. It was arranged that the question as to the power of the Board to give a please, should be taken prior to the question of breach of the conditions and non execution of the agreement. Mr Raymond quoted the Public Domains Act 1881, sections 19 and 5 to show the Board had no power to lease, and quoted the following cases to support hi* contention i —Ashbury Kailway Co. v. Riche 7, H.L., 653, and Baroness Wenlock v. River Dee Co., 10, of Appeal Cases 354. Mr Hay admitted that no power to lease was bestowed on the Board, but contended that the Board was estopped by its agreement, quoting Woodfall’a Landlord and Tenant, and also urged that though the lease was void an implied tenancy existed. Mr Raymond replied that the doctrine of eatoppal did not apply to validate an ultra vires rot of a corporation, citing Pollock on Contracts, and Lindley’s Law of Partnership. The Bench held that the lease was ultra vires, and that no estoppal could arise, dismissing the information with costs. The Bench also thought that as the question of title was involved the case should have been, taken to another Court. R. H. Pearpoint v. C. E. Sherratt.— Mr Hay for informant, and Mr Raymond for defendant—Mr Hay stated that the case turned upon the previous one, and he wonld apply to withdraw the information.—Leave to do so was accordingly granted, defendant being allowed costs.