SON SUES FATHER.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 4 December 1924, Page 7

SON SUES FATHER.

NO WAGES FOR FOUR YEARS. A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTHAMILTON, Dec. 3. A claim for £8(?7 wages and moneys due was brought by Anthony Leonard Sewell, farmer, of Ngapaenga, against his father, John Sewell, in the Supreme •Court, Hamilton, yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury of twelve. Mr. E. M. Mackersey represented plaintiff, and Mr. .Vernon appeared for defendant. According to the statement of claim, plaintiff, on his return from the war in 1920, entered into an agreement with his father to manage the latter’s farm at Ngapaenga, in consideration for which he was to receive a half of the profits from the farm, and also onehalf of the proceeds from the farm in the event of its being sold. In December, 1920, plaintiff informed defendant that in consequence of the slump in farm produce he did not anticipate that any profits would be earned from the farm, and as a further inducement to plaintiff to remain on the property, defendant offered him reasonable remuneration for his services in the event of half the profits not providing such. Plaintiff claimed that from February 1, 1920, till March 31, 1924, he had continuously farmed and managed the property. In May, 1922, defendant gave plaintiff twenty dairy cows &s a wedding present, and told him he could graze them on liis (defendant’s) property. Plaintiff milked the cows and became a supplier of the local dairy company, and received in milk cheques the sum of £293, of which plaintiff lent defendant various sums. Oh March 31, 1924, defendant, without just cause, dismissed him and seized 'the twenty dairy cows, and had refused to deliver them up. Plaintiff, therefore, claimed £l4O as the value of the cows, £541 as wages at the rate of £2 10s per week, £135 money lent, and £SO as damages for the wrongful seizure of the cows. Plaintiff gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement. The defence was a. complete'denial of the claim. Defendant held that there was no agreement to pay plaintiff any wages. The understanding between them was that lie (the father) should finance the farm an l plaintiff should supply the labour, the profits of the farm to be shared equally among them, and as there were no profits, nothing was due to plaintiff. The twenty cows were in no way a present to'plaintiff, biit were purchased with the object of providing pocket money for the two boys, who were each to get a quarter of the profits, he (defendant) to net tlie other half. He did not dismiss his his son; plaintiff gave notice and left • of his own free will. After a short retirement the jury (zavo a verdict for plaintiff for £l4O, the value of the cows, £135 for money •out, and £2O damages for detention of the cows.'as well as £250 wages clue.