SHAREMILKING CONTRACT

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLI, Issue XLI, 7 May 1921, Page 4

SHAREMILKING CONTRACT

I — — i CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. ' t The hearing of the case Reardon L Bros. (Mr. I>. ODea) v. Robert Johns . (Mr. L. A. Taylor) was concluded at ' the Magistrate's Court before Mr. T. IA. B. Bailey, S.M., yesterday. There ■ was a claim and counter-claim, but on the claim, which was for proportion of I bonuses due to plaintiffs on a sharemilking contract, an agreement was i arrived "at on the, last hearing, and only r the counter-claim by Johns, for work _ which, it was alleged, 'plaintiffs should j have done and had not done under the . contract, remained to be dealt with, f r ' Leo Reardon, one of the plaintiffs, . stated that he had served 1 year 235 t days with the New Zealand Expedi'* j tionary Forces, and produced Iris dis- . charge papers showing that he had been creditably discharged. Reardon s explained how he first met Johns and how the offer of share-milking came » to be made. He had told Johns that [ he was prepared to go share-milking and Johns had offered him a. job. He " went on the farm on July 4 and the ' agreement was not signed till March of the following year. He could not say t why there had been so much delay in i having the agreement signed. He was i ready to sigri any day. The "first farm - he took on was No. 2, and on Septern- | her, 7 he took over No.. 1 farm. They _ were asked as a favour by Mr. Johns 1 to go over on the evening of the 7th . and assist Bert Johns with the v #ows. 3 All Mr. J6hns' people/were sick, and I about a week' later Johns asked him and his brother if they would take P over the second farm permanently. He r declined, and a week later Johns again x pressed them. They told him that there j would be too much to do, and Johns J told them that if they would employ 9 a man he would stick to them and see them through. Johns had represented to them that he was in trouble. He i could not put up a house for other | share-milkers, and he did not care to 1 have anyone with him in his own house, i He said to them: .''You. have stuck to L me in my time of trouble and I'll see you- through." They then took thie s & cows on. They employed one man, f Dick Anderson. Johns only asked them x to employ one man. On No. 2 farm j, they milked 44 cows at the flush of x the season, and an equal number on 3 No. 1 farm. For one week, owing to t the machines not being in proper order, lie and his brother milked for seven . days 73 cows themselves. This meant getting up at 2.15, and they were not J the last at the factory. They had been ' told that they would get half of the _ calves on No. 1 farm. When it came to " a settlement they were refused their _ share and were told that the use of ,the milking machine for the season • was equal to their share of the calves. During the fortnight that Johns was " away they were asked to look after the bush place as well. This meant an hour or two a day. After the winter feed--3 ing was over on this place they were - asked to go up and see that the stock i had water. , v j They did various work on the bush • farm and also on No. 2 farm that was .outside of their agreement. Witness ' stated that the cows on Nos. 1 and 2 farms were never without water. During the time witness was shareJ milking for Johns no cows ever got | into the orchard, and no complaint was ever made to iim about the trees ' being damaged until he got the counterclaim. • The wagon on the farm was not in 1 repair when he took it over, and he > kept it in repair until he left the - farm. The wagon was in a better con- - dition then than when he took it over. • He also kept the pump in repair, and s this was also in a better condition when i, he finished with the machines than , when he started. Witness produced re_ i , ceipts for moneys paid for the repair 5 of the pump. ' - ! From April until.May 20 they milked i by hand. In. regard to the claim for '' brooms and brushes they were quite i entitled to take1 them away, as they had - , bought them themselves. The ropes in I ihe bails had also been replaced by : . them. • |-i They started tripod harrowing on l May 20, but Johns complained thati they were spoiling the feed and did, ' not allow them to go on with the work until a week later, and of course they > did not get the work finished. But for this delay they would have finished. I The small yard of No. 2 farm was in as good repair when'he, left as when he took the farm over." The big yard on No. 2 farm was too wet to be repaired when they left, and they made arrangements with the present 'sharemilker (Mrs. James) to" have this at-' tended to. He thought that'the ar-; rangement made with Mrs. James was ' quite a fair one. When they took over No 2 place all the fences were trimmed, 1 and according to their agreement they | were to keep them as they found them, j There were two small division fences ' on No.. 1 farm which were also trimmed, and. one division fence between No. 1 and No. 2 was trimmed. ' , That was all when they went there.' Johns' -instructions were not to have, both sides of the small boxthorn fences cut. as he wanted to keep them for shelter. Theref'^e they1 only cut one' side in accordance with his instructions. They had re-trimmed one side of the fences that had been trimmed the year before they came to the farm, and one side of the big hedge instead of the other side of the, small ones. ! Witness considered that the 12 chains of the big- fence was about the same as a 25-year-old - hedge on a farm he was on now. j jOn the 5 acres triangle across * I the road there were nearly,: I half a! mile of hedges. Another hedge*, which Jiphns was countterclaiming on was that around & paddock whi<ch they never used, .as Johns had kept his bulls there. . While they were on the place they did ■ not have many idle days. ]f there was occasion for them to leave the farm one always remained at home. With regard to an item in the counterclaim for the cost of a boar, witness' stated that the boar died a natural death. The death of some of John-:' I pigs which witness was looking after I was caused through the disgraceful, : state of the sty the pigs were kept in. I When witness left the nlace there were 14 store pigs. 4 breeding sows, and one ma:den sow. During the time statled in the counterclaim witness only lost 1 one small nig. He had asked Johns to erect another sty, but his request was not granted. Johns had asked him to stay on for the next season at l-3rd ut> to 2s, and had said that he was satisfied with witness ability as a sharemilker. As regards the wire fences, they were in very bad order. He could 'not keep the fences iji as good repair as he wowld ' have liked i owing to laink of material. The fence was in as good repair when they left as when they took over. In ' regard to the harrows which witness had borrowed from Mr Carroll, they > were an old set, and as witness had lost . parts of them he offered to nay Mr Carroll for the repair of same."but Mr Carroll had said that that'd^l not matter. .; Cross-examined by Mr L. A. Taylor, ' witness said that he'had 'no final "set- : J&ma, un with Johns. i Witness said he \<a.s oreparod to swear ' that he told Mr Bert Johns that the :

boar wu< dead. Mr Taylor asked >\^- ness why he had not tio.u Mr Jonm :.-. j iore he ma tiuit me p,g nacl died. I in- iepiy to Mr Tayior's statement that witness had Starved the p-gs, witm*»s stated that he did no sum vaiug, Asked if tne pigs were fed weU, witnttstared that he was told to plough a certain piece of ground to" provide oro m, j teed ta e animals. I'nis He did, and he added the ground was not ht tor tiie purpose. 'Ine pigs had got into the crops owiii^ to the old and rotten states ot Cue fence round the pig yard.. Mr Taylor pioduced a letter written by witness to Mr Johns, otter, ng to take one bonus instead of two. ( Witness stated that he had made the i offer simply because he was wanting money owing as he was moving into another place and was in need of it. Asked by Mr Taylor if witness had been engaged in many arguments with, Mr Johns witness stated that he had | had several, and added that Mr Johns i was the most dissatisfied man he had ever sharemilked for. Hector Hardacre,. sharemilker at Inaha, said he had visited Mr Johns' ; piace, which was two or three miles . away from his. Witness, had been over I the farm Reardon Bros.' had occupied, ( and had seen a good deal of work that ,| had been done. He thought that Rear- ; don Bros.'had worked well. The fences round the pig yard were not in very good order. The orchard was In good condition. The wire fences were rusty and could be easily broken by a strain. ; i Mr L A. Taylor in his cross-examina-tion, asked witness wnat he thought of the terms of the contract, which stated that witness was to lop 3 top and trim the hedges. Witness replied that he did not think such a contract -would refer big hedges that had not been Kept tor four or five years. <3plin McDonald, of inaha, who gave evidence concerning the state of the farm _ that had been occupied by the Reardon Bros. sa>d that he thought the brothers had done very well to have cut as much as they did. He would not £ke to say how old the big hedges .were, but he thought they were quite ten j years did. If he was asked to lot>^ too i ?w iT inY such ¥dses he -would "think ! *«?*■ he had rather a tough job ahead. I V> ltness also supported Hector Hardacre s evidence with regard to thefences and tlie orchard. I Questioned by the Magistrate, Mr Johns stated that all the hedges on No I farm had been trimmed, mi* on No i j some had bee-n trimmed and some had j not been touched since 1914 There were only two small hedges that had been j some of the b:g hedges that had been ; trimmed on No. 1. In connection with the incident of the tripod harrows, Mr d^ nRi c"le * havin? the RearSu T/ from usi "c ff .V«itfr? rate, "otified hat he WO uld give his dec:s:on later