COURT OF APPEAL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 20 July 1928, Page 11

COURT OF APPEAL

SHAREMILKER’S CONTRACT. A MANTJTAHI CASE. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 20. The Appeal Court is hearing tlie case of B. Muggeridge and tearah M. Thompson v. A. u. W. Lehmann, an appeal against the judgment or Mr. justice Ustier given in January. The Bench consists of Justices Sim, Reed, and Smith. Respondent was engaged by the appellants under contract dated Juy i, i 927, as sharemilker on a farm at Manutahi, to milk 90 cows and perform all other work so that the farm might in the best possible manner be carried on as a dairy farm. The term of engagement was from July 1, 1927, to July 1, 1928. He arrived on the farm with his wife, two sons, and two daughters on June 28 or 29, and started work on July 1. He received written notice on the morning or July 25, purporting to- terminate the contract on July 28 and giving him notice to quit. 1 He accordingly did so, and- brought an action in the court below on a claim for damages and return of £IOO which had teen paid under the contract as part of the purchase money for milking machine, waggon, and other plant on the place. This £IOO was conressed ior, and a defence was filed in which the appellants claimed 1 to justify the repudiation of the contract on various grounds. Tii© first ground was that the respondent was? so negligent and dilatory in his work that had he been allowed to' remain in charge any longer tlie farm would have deteriorated and the . herd would have been irreparably ruined. His Honour held that tlie evidence given fell, short of proof of these allegations. It was further held that on the construction of the agreement a sharemilker was an independent contractor, and not subject generally to control and direction of the owner as to the manner in which' he should do liis work, and that no breach or series of breaches of contract on respondent’s part- had been proved which would justify the appellants in repudiating it. Judgment was entered for respondent for the £IOO confessed and £162 damages and costs. From this decision the appellants are now appealing. Mr. P. O’Dea appeared for the appellants and Mr. A. K. North for the respondent.