SHAREMILKING CASE

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 22 June 1923, Page 7

SHAREMILKING CASE

WHETU MAWAB v. HOKIO. ' THURSDAY, JUNE 21. (Before Mr. J. S. 'Barton, S.M.) The Maori sharemilking case Wheti* v. Hokio was continued at the Hawera Magistrate's Court to-day. Mr. H. G. Brodie, for" nlaintiff. said that the ease arose out of a sharemilkjing arrangement by which plaintiff would take half milk money and do the work on the farm. All went well until January, when plaintiff refused to provide or nay for seeds and manures, and defendant gave him notice. The plaintiff's last money received was for December, 1922. Evidence would showthat the agreement was to last for the whole season. Mr. ODea said that the amount of work not done siore than wiped out all that might be due, and therefore- Ms client hnd given instant dismissal.. ' Th* Magistrate said that the master could dismiss if sufficient cause. Whetu Mawae, in reply to Mr. I Brodie, said he was sharemilking for j defendant, _ his arrangement, half ; Cheques, being made for a,' completeseason i?i September. He was to dothe milking of the cows, but Hokio was j to- get all the proceeds of calves. At { the time the contract was made there was no mention of seeds and manures. The cows were mixed, 18 in number, some of which, were good, and also five J horses. He got payment up to January. ■ He saw Hokio in January, and he was then dismissed about the 20th at one . week's notice. He stayed on until the 30th. The farm was in a bad condition, too many cows and horses, in Janu- , ary. It comprised 50 acres/ only 30 j being good for farming. j To the Magistrate: He had received £30 during the contract and £7 since for fence cutting, etc., for a European. There was no trouble between them ; during the contract.. ! To Mr. ODea: He would not admit that he had to keep fences in repair, but agreed to fix no the fences to keep in the cows. All that he had to do was just to milk the cows and get half the cheques. He would go out if he knew the cows were wandering find get them in. He was not working his own farm as well as Hokio's. He pulled some of the ragwort, but did not do the whole of the work, and there were posts ond wires, which lie used as far" as they would go. He had put in 4' acres of turnips', and the cows got into them through the old fence. He repaired the fence, but still they got in, because plain wire would not stop the cows. There was a drill, but he did not leave it out and did not inspect it to see ■ what seed was in it. He did not agree ' to provide seeds, and if he had agreed j there would bare been no case. There : Was a dam, but lie did not do the re- ! pairs, as the damage was not done while he was there. He repaired the ram only. Neighbours said that they saw the fences clown and stock all over the paddocks. He would have done a lot more than he actually did if he had by his agreement been bound to do the work. Hokio found cans and buckets, ' but he did no+, mention that he himself should have ddSne so. He paid for the ploughing done. He had earned only £7, but had a farm from which he drew rents. He put in three rows of mangolds, which were doing well when he left. He admitted he did not hoe the potatoes. He would say that the fences were in better condition. : To Mr. Brodie: The v posts on the farm when he went there would last three or four years, but those which were put in. He was to milk the cows, but not to supply the labour for farm work. Hokio had supplied 101b of seed and two sacks of manures. The cattle could not get through the fences when he went in to the farm. The work on the farm would take more than one man. ' ! To Mr. ODea: Hokio said nothing about a reason when giving a week's notice, except to mention the question of the seeds and manure. He did not , approve of the notice, and told Hokio I so. Hokio mentioned the ragwort not ' being done, but he had overlooked it ' at fiwst. I J. E. Sole, who stated he had been j living opposite the farm for a number ! of years, said that the road fences' were in a bad condition when Whetu ! went into the pjace and similarly when ! he went off. Whetu did certain fenc- j ing, cutting posts as he went, and he : also planted certain crops which had | not been grown on the farm before. Whetu was working for witness at the present time and was an honest toiler. The case for the plaintiff was closed, subject to counsel being allowed toi call one more witness who was absent from court that day. Mr. ODea, in opening for the defence, said that the defendant was positive that when the share-milking contract was decided it was agreed that Whetu would do certain work. Manure and seeds were to be found by Whetti, at a total cost of £3 17s, and defendant told Wfcetu that he was deducting this amount from the cheque. The farm was allowed to get into a shocking state. Joe Hokio. the defendant, said the arrangement with Whetu was that he should do the milking and the general woik on the farm and draw half the cheques. It was not correct that Whetu was to do nothing but milk the cows. Witness was on the farm every month, and on different occasions witness told Whetu to finish the turnips and mangolds. Whetu had replied that he did not have to do that sort of work. As a matter of fact the land was ploughed and left without any crops being planted. After plaintiff had been on the farm for two months he told defendant that Sole and McKay had j told him that he was not supposed to j do a lot of work he was going to do , about the farm ; it was not his work. \ Whetu neglected to pull ragwort, and defendant had to pull it himself, but not until after it had flowered. Defendant estimated that the damage , which would result from the ragwort' flowering would represent about £10. ■ Defendant had lost about £30 through ' the failure of the plaintiff to plant tnr- j nips, and about £12 through his failure to plant mangolds. He considered it would take about £8 to put one of , the fences in the same condition as it was when Whetu went on to the farm. Repairs to the dam had cost £8. Cows had wandered over the crops and defendant had been a heavy loser thereby. The present sharemilker, Chas. Hopkinson, said that in his opinion the farm had been neglected while the plaintiff was on it. He stated that lie I had Tjut fences in repair since he had i come on the place, and he estimated i that the amount required to he spent before the place was in proper order would be about £12 for fences and £10 for repairing a dam, while the neglect of crops had resulted in a loss of £30. i Welii Taniwha said in evidence that he was not prepared to say whether Wetu was a good worker or not. ' Banjri Koran deposed that plaintiff had allowed Hopkinson's farm to go back. Cows had been allowed to wander on the road, and under the present sharemilker the place- was "miles better." Thi* concluded the evidence, except that Mr. Brodie reserved the right to call G. A. Duncan, secretary of the TT'uvei'a Dairy Company, next week. The cage was therefore adjourned.