MILKING PROFITS CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 61, 11 March 1916, Page 9

MILKING PROFITS CASE.

s*?££ stars? r K. SUrted aC Pulrekohe, and the further commuation adjourned to AuckMun. (Mr. Maiony). and the defendant ii. n. t>omerville iMr. Haddow). The {action was one to have partnership accounts taken in respect to a contract lor milkicg on shares. Evidence was given by Mr. Pacev maoagar of the New Zealand Dairy Association, this morning, to the "effect that when the profit of the season had been ascertained the practice was to declare the dividend, and the balance was distributed amongst shareholders at so much per pound on the batter-fat supplied. Mr. Page said the action was taken by plaintiff to recover from defendant tae sum of £7 odd alleged to be due as proportion of bonus. Against Lhis a- counter claim had teea laid for £10 alleged to be due for plaintiff grazing horses on defendant's property. Hy Worship said the bonus in question was called a quantity one, calculated by the quantity of buttcr-iat supplied, and paid only to shareholders according to the number oJ shares held. The agreement between plaintiff and defendant was to share equally the returns from the farm. If the matter stood alone without any subsequent variation the Court would have awarded the plaintiff bis share of the bonus but at the end of the season the plaintiff made no claim ior his share o: 4e quantity bonus, nor did he make any claim at the end of the second year. Some eight months after he had withdrawn from the partnersh!?, -=*»»£ pntlv after a conversation with nia Pontiff claimed Ms shar. torieited his rigltu J( counter daun, Mr. fage dci knew that the horses were being grazed, but made no objection, and thereby also forfeited his right. Judgment was given for the defendant for the amount claimed, and for the plaintiff on the counter claim. Each party was ordered to pay fiis own costs.