SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue LXVIII, 23 October 1914, Page 6

SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE

The defended case, R. Fergusson (j\iiSeflar v. J. J. Patterson (Mr Q'pea and Mr, Powell), arising out of a: sharemilking dispute, which has-■ occupied the attention o'f the Court for the past: few weeks, was resumed on TMrsday; .before Mr Kenrick, S.M. , •

Robert Johns, continuing his evi-'. .dence, estimated'that it would cost £ii os a chain for,, 360 chains, to/ cut the I; hedges, including the "-grubbing- of the \ gorse. within the hedges, and ~s a caa'n! for another 40 chains elsewhere, on thei farm. . The farm was subject to gorse,? and ..was contaminated with gorseseed; and seedlings. If the farm were cosod! up'it would soon become a 'louse forest.} TVlr Fergusspn had grubbed the-g-.rse as| reasonably well as could be e:q octed,; considering the nature of the: farm. j A. Gray'don gave evidence as to the; state of the farm previous to .Mr lfergusson taking possession. There was no more gorse on the place now than about eight or ten years apo; it was thicker, although it had \\<A> spread.Evidence was given by I'rs I<ridgman and Charles Bridj?ai.in and Han■eeil as to grubbing having been doro on the farm.

W. Murray deposed tuat the farm, compared favorably with lhe -farms about the neighoovhood. Evidence as to the satisfactory co? ditipn of thel farai/vas &!« gifn ).y J. Imlahf^and W. Dakers.

R. Fergusspn (the philnyff) deposed that in.the agreement betweon v^iijess and Mr Patterson, uiiiioss had lo keep tlis gorse from snreadiig ou t^:e ftir'nj, trim the hedges ■••a'-ou.id rhe house, and to. keep the place:'ti' : y. Th»-re was no definition'made t.s to cu thig.<r pubbing thegorse. When uitn-_*-s vent'ori the farm the ploughiible iaM w;is fairly clear, and the first thing w'uiips<*. did was to get a man to do so tie c,i'.;bb?i;g, between his hours of milking. Evciy year witness had kept the yubbed, but wheie gorse had become established witness did not attempt t« cope with it. Witness grubbed only once a year, but he kept it from sprea-1-ing. Witness never attempted to g:.uß the gorse which had grown info the boxthorii hedges, and which was m the hedges when witness went on to the farm eight years ago. Had never cut or trimmed the hedges on the back portion of the farm because it never had been agreed that these were to bo cut; Mr Patterson never complained about these fences not being cut, and in fa sit said they were, an asset to the-fann because of. the shelter they afforded stock. Although- it was not in the agreement witness was to repair the fences, he actually did .do so where necessary in order to keep the stock on the farm. When witness first went on to the farm there were only six or seven gates on .the place, and during the time witness- hacl been in possession of the farm had made and hung no fewer than .18 gates. At the time of the settlement no mention was made about the boxthorn hedges, although Mr Patterson asked witness if ho had finished clearing up the gorse, to which witness replied* "Yes."

At. thii ii-age the CJourt adjourned until next Tuesday. "