SHAREMILKING DISPUTE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 31 October 1928, Page 12

SHAREMILKING DISPUTE.

HARROD v.''CARTER. MAGISTRATE RESERVES DELUSION. At the Eltham . Alagistrate’s Court yesterdav, before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., the adjourned ciyiL case in which James E. Harrod, sliaremiiker, claimed the slim of £BB Lis Gd from William jr. Carter, ‘ farmer, of Hunter Road, was continued. . Defendant counter-claimed the sum of £221 11s 5d for losses alleged to have been incurred through plaintiff’s neglect and ia.lure to comply uitii agreed terms. Mr. r. O’Dea (Hawera) appeared for ' plaintiff, and Air. A. A. Stewart (r.ltliam) represented the defendant. The plaintiff’s ease, closed at the last sitting of the court on October 16, hut Mr O’Dea was granted permission to introduce the evidence of Mrs. Harrod, who was unable, through illness, to attend the court during the previous hearing. , ' Constance Harrod, tvtfe of plamtut, gave evidence of the number of cows milked on the farm during their term as sliaremilkiens, showing that not more than 44 cows were in at any time, of which number otdy 39 had full quarters. Witness also stated that she kept the record of time, worked by her husband on the culvert filling. ■ EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. The first witness called in continuation of evidence for the defence was Walter I’enley D. Jenkins, stock agent in the employ of. the Farmers’ Co-operative Association, who sa-.d that lie remembered the sale of nine calves on February 15 last, on behalf 'of Air. Carter, at £3 7s per head. This was a very fair price at the time. Ii kept until September before offering they would probably have realised a further £2 per head. The incident was fixed’ in his memory on account of the fact that Harrod was bidding for the calves, and he afterwards learned that Harrod was sharemilking for Carter. Walter Rowlands, manager of the Hunter | Road cheese factory, . deposed to.being engaged bv Carter to cut boxthorn during his annual holiday. William ’Ernest Carter, defendant, said he owned two farms of a little over 100 acres each, one of which was sharemilked by Harrod. The latter’s share of the proceeds was £453 13s 6d. Previous to Harrod’s selection as sliaremiiker from 52 applicants, witness had systematically culled his herd with a. view to increased production. Oil two distinct occasions Harrod had willingly promised to assist in the culvert construction and filling, and witness hacl no idea of a claim for wages’- in this connection until a short time prior to initiation of the present proceedings He considered plaintiff s claim of £2 8s for fencing exorbitant ; 10s'or 12s would cover the cost of the work done, even by a good fencer. The fence erected by plaintiff was as good as no fence at ail. Harrod had kept 12 heifer and 3 steer calves on the farm—a greater number than he was entitled to keep. Late in the season the plaintiff had not .made a start at cutting hoxthorn. and- witness told him that it would be done at his (plaintiff’s) expense. Plaintiff still made no attempt to cut the hedges, and witness had to employ outside labour todo the work which plaintiff had agreed to do. At the beginning of plaintiff’s engagement he had worked to witness’ satisfaction, and later it was mutually agreed that in consideration of plaintiff stumping four, or five acres extra and cutting more hoxthorn than had been originally agreed upon plaintiff’s percentage of proceeds would he increased from 331-3 to 49 per cent. Plaintiff did not fulfill, this agreement, nor had he complied with the conditions in regard to eradication of noxious weeds. The fencing of stacks could .have been done as well by a schoolboy. Owing to plaintiff’s delay in stumping the land, and consequent late sowing, witness had suffered a loss of £23 on • a crop of turnips, and a further loss of £l2 was occasioned by the cows breaking into a crop of mangolds. Plaintiff had neglected to- cart manure and an accumulation had eventuated, for removal of which au expense of over £2 would be incurred. Under cross-examination by Mr. O’Dea, witness admitted having stated in the advertisement inviting applications for a sliaremiiker that the herd comprised 4S cows, and further that, in the flush of the season, actually only 39 cows were being milked; He denied the statements that Harrod was promised payment- for work on the cui- \ ert at Public Works Department rates, and that he raised the percentage rate on proceeds because the- cows were, not realising expectations.. In reply to a question by Air. O’Dea as to the .reason of plaintiff and his family falling off in their work alter Christmas, witness said lie presumed they were. making too. much money under the amended agreement - as a matter of fact, they were in a better position than he was, and he considered they, were doing remarkab y well in taking approximately £SOO off the farm during the season. Although a neighbour's pigs had damaged the mangold crop, this did not alfect his c laim for £.2 for damages caused In cows during Harrod’s occupation—the pigs were on the mangolds after Harrod left. To Air. O’Dea : A good farmer would have no empty cows in his herd, and witness considered his claim ox £6O in respect of four empty cows discovered in the herd was not unreasonable —two of them had previously proved themselves to be much above-the average. . To Mr. Stewart, witness denied an inference by plaintiff that he (witness, was in iinane.o 1 difficulties at- any time while Harrod was on the farm. William Russell Carter, a son of tho defendant-, said lie was present- when Harrod- was engaged by lii.s father and was told that the herd would comprise between 45 and 47 cows. He did not remember -any arrangement being made in reference to a culvert. Witness generally corroborated the evidence o - his father. This closed the case for the defence. Mr. Tate said lie would have to take time to review the evidence, and accordingly reserved h's judgment.