I don't understand. Can't the judge rule on ownership NOW? Or is she waiting for the embezzlement hearing? This makes no sense.
Whether the man is guilty of embezzlement (which he IS for selling a leased horse which did not belong to him) should have no bearing on whether Ropo is the legal owner or whether the Uncle (who "unknowingly" bought a horse which did not belong to the seller) should be considered the legal owner. I think the judge should have ruled immediately and not put it off all this time. If she wasn't going to rule right then and there, why not tie the whole thing in with the embezzlement trial????
Like I said, I'm confused.