FARMER AND HIS MANAGER

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 1 February 1933, Page 4

FARMER AND HIS MANAGER

CLAIM AND COUNTER, CLAIM. OMOANA DISPUTE BEFORE COURT At the Eitham Court, before Mr. W. A. Woodward, S.M., yesterday a case was partly heard in which John Cocker, Rawhitiroa claimed from W. G. Robinson (Omoana) and formerly plaintiff’s farm manager at Omoana, the sum of £3B 12s Bd. The statement of claim included the following items: (1) Removal of parts of a hot water system, causing, £lO damage; (2) loss of two calves, valued at £4; (3) damage to a cow through defendant’s neglect, a loss of £5; (4) occupation of house for two weeks, £2: (5) grazing of 20 sheep and one bull' £2 13s 4d; (6) grazing of one horse' for six years and 15 cattle for three months, £ls. Defendant made' a counter claim for £3O 4s 3d made up as follows: Amount due on an arrangement whereby defendant installed in plaintiff’s house Water service and piping, on the understanding that plaintiff would pay the cost, £lo’ 4s 3d; cost of service by his bull of cows and heifers, £2O. Mr.-. L. A. Taylor appeared for plaintiff and Mr B. Malone for defendant.

Mi 1 . Taylor in outlining the case, stated his client had two farms, at Rawhitiroa and at Omoana and defendaiffc had been the manager at Omo ana. In 1921 his wages had been reduced and he had made a claim that was to be heard at the Supreme. Court later. Counsel’s client had then claimed for certain items and said that defendant had misused his position to the detriment of Cocker.

Plaintiff had paid visits at irregular intervals to Omoana and had • onsidered defendant a trusted employee. The latter, he affirmed, misused his farm to run his own stock and now plaintiff wished to have grazing fees paid. Counsel referred to the installation of the water service, adding that all the plaintiff did was undone by the defendant. The latter also neglected the calves and cows, whereas be should really have been “bound to take proper care of his master’s nrojjerfy.” Plaintiff had agreed in 1921 to allow defendant, in lieu of wages, to graze fifteen acres and to run :■ took on the area, but he had actual!v used the rest of the farm for this purpose. He should pay reasonable “agistment.” " Plaintiff, in Ins evidence, said that he had agreed to allow defendant to run a horse and a cow and to have mutton for the house purposes. He had agreed to pay for the installation of a water service, but when defendant was dismissed, he had agreed to allow him to occupy the house for two weeks provided be left the service m the house and he had offered .the In acres at a reasonable rental. Referring to the claim for calves and cow. he said defendant had disobeyed instructions in regard to the paddocks to be used. 'The calves, one a pedigree, had been lost and the cow had been ruined through being left after calving and going down with milk fever. He also gave details of the grazing of hull, sheep and horse and added that he had sent out to Omoana enough wire to completely ep.tiiall fences, so as to make them cattle proof. Plaintiff stated that, when defendant left he pulled down a fence of five chains long round the garden. In regard to defendant’s bull, plaintiff said he had made no arrangements for its use and had no progeny from the animal.

In reply to Mr Malone, witness' said he would have agreed to accept the piping if put back in a workmanlike manner, but it was too late to do so now. He detailed the instructions given b v him, through his son, as to placing the cows and calves in special paddocks. He did not- think his son would make a mistake. In regard to the stock on the farm, witness said he had never lost a “bussfed calf,” but sometimes lost yearlings, perhaps fifteen in a year. Possibly a few sheep would get away at mustering time. In reply to the magistrate witne:said his claim was put in only when Robinson claimed wages. The magistrate said lie would scrutinise the statement pretty closely. Continuing his evidence, witness said h e had found Robinson a good worker until his wages had been reduced in 1921. He gave some details abouc sheep that had got into his yards after mustering, from neighbouring farms. In regard to the counter claim the defence was that it was statute hai - red. , . At this stage of the case the hearing . was adjourned until next court day. . .