A FARM DISPUTE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 15 August 1928, Page 11

A FARM DISPUTE.

WOKK DUNK BY SHAiIEMILKEIt

CLAIM BEKOIUi COtUIT.

Tlie obligations of a sharemiliker at iiuilia for manuring the farm on which he was engaged were under dismission in the Court, Haw-era, to-day, when William John Me Raj made a successful claim herons Mr J S Barton, S.M.. for the recovery ol £l9 stated to have been wrongfully deducted from monies owing to him by Bernard and Richard Roberts as executors of the will of this late Mm - ris Roberts, of Inaha. The claim originally preferred had been for £~o 12s, of which £6 12s was admitted by defendants, leavin.or £l9 in dispute. This related to the cartage and spreadin°r of 25 boils of manure and June of 1928, which plaintiff contended did not come within the isoope of the agreement made for .the IJ2/--0 season. , . . , r Plaintiff’s case was conducted by Mi L. Taylor and Mr B. Malone appeared for defendants. , , In evidence plaintiff McKay deposed to having -worked on a islia re nil Ikl ng contract for the late Morris Roberts, the contract being made an June, x9z/. He commenced in July and the term of the contract was until June 00, 1928. Some time before then lie had been asked by Bernard! Roberts n he weie going to remain on the taim. Witness answered in the affirmative, and Roberts then procured manure for the season. Tvrenty-fiv© tons of ».ag had been obtained and witness, m ielianoe of the promise for the renewal of his contract, spread about 24 ions. This was started in May and finished in June. Previously ill July of 192/ h. 3 had put on about 30 tons of lime. He would regard that as complying with the terms of the agreement requiring him to put manure on the land. On account of witness’s son leaving the farm he was told about the end of June' that the contract could not be renewed. In the settlement of affairs defendants had deducted from the bonus payments the sums of £iO loi cartage of 25 tons of manure and £J for spreading. ~ , ~ Cross-examined by Mr Malone, witness admitted that at the time .a renewal of the contract hadi been spoken of w-ith Bernard Roberts lie had riot informed the latter that his son wouici not be staving on. The agreement provided for four milkers. Witness had intended (retting u iriun to repl<xoe ins son in tlie -shed. Up to the end of June he had taken no steps to get a man, but even without the extra man the necessary number of adult milkers could be supplied bv the family. There was only a small number of cow® to milk in' July, though in December there were 130* in milk., The question of wrongful deduction had not been raised until after witness’ was advised that the contract was not being renewed. Witness had to pay for cartage of manure and bad. the contract been renewed the deductions, would have been in order. He regarded the spreading of the lime last vear as having fulfilled his obligations under that iseason’s contract, and he did not regard the spreading of lime in the spring and slag in the autumn a s constituting one season’s manuring. Fifty-five or fifty-seven tons- of manure, might, however, be a reasonable'amount to put a farm of 270 acres during one season. The case for defendants, as outlined. ~by Mir 3Vta*lon-w 5 was thut u ridei the terms of the agreement the sharemilker was hound to attend to such seasonal manuring as was required by the owner, andl thut the two applioartion® of lime and slag respectively by plaintiff constituted, tlie work for the season. . _ , Defendant, Beniard Morns Roberts, said that up to tlie 1926-27 iseason no top-dressing had been done on the farm. Lime, super, and hay manure had been then used', about 57 tons m all. The lime had been applied m June, July and August of 1926, followed by the super. The other. manure had! been applied in the following year. This had been done by the then sharemilker, Wards. For the 1927-28 iseason witness had decided to apply and! slag, the lime to go on in the spring and slag in the autumn. W itness thought that McKay had coniine need spreading the slag in April and he had instructed witness, as to whom he (McKay 1 wished to have engaged for carting the manure. It was some time after that when witness asked! whether McKay would be carrying on at the farm. McKay had said he would be doing so, so- far a® he knew, but witness said nothing of a definite nature. But for tlie fact that klcKav’s son had decided to go to* another farm lie would have been re-engaged. It was on June 29 or 30, this day after McKay had informed witness lus son was leaving that, after consulting with his brother, witness told McKay the contract would not be renewed. To the magistrate witness said that the next top-dressing would be carried out in the annum of 1929. In 192/ McK.av had paid £lO for the cartage of the manure handled in July of that year. ... .. Reviewing the evidence, the magistrate. held that plaintiff had fulfilled fho terms of the contract for tlie 192/28 season for top-dressing with the apob"cation, made in July, of 1927 and that the top-dressing in 1928 had been applied in the belief that the sharemilking contract was being renewed and that tlie manuring then carried out was in respect of the season He was therefore entitled to be credited with the work which was m excess of the original contract. Judgment was given for plaintiff tor the full amount claimed, with £-- 4s costs and £4 3s solicitor s fee.