SON SUES FATHER.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XIX, Issue 2051, 4 December 1924, Page 5

SON SUES FATHER.

FOR YEARS UNPAID. WAGES AS FARM MANAGER. A claim for £867 wages and moneys clue was brought by Anthony Leonard Sewell, farmer, of Ngapaenga, against his father, John Sewell, in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, on Tuesday, before His Honor Mr Justice Herdman and a jury of 12. Mr E. M. Mackersey represented plaintiff and Mr Vernon defendant.

According to the statement of ! claim, plaintiff, on his return from : the. war. in 1920, entered into an agreement with his father to manage the latter's farm at Ngapaenga, in consideration of which he was to receive a half of the profits from the farm and also one-half of the proceeds of the farm in the event of it being sold. In December, 1920, defendant informed plaintiff that in consequence of the slump in farm produce he did not anticipate any profits would be earned from the farm, and as a further inducement for plaintiff to remain on the farm he offered him reasonable remuneration for his services in the event of half the profits not proving such. Plaintiff claimed that from February 2, 1920, till March 31, 1924, continuously farmed and managed the property. In May, 1922, defendant gave plaintiff 20 dairy cows as a wedding present and told him he could graze them on his (defendant's) property. Plaintiff milked the cows and became a supplier of the local dairy company, and received in milk cheques the sum of £293, of which plaintiff lent defendant various sums. On " March 31, 1924, defendant without just cause dismissed him and seized 20 dairy cows, and had refused to deliver them up. Plaintiff therefore claimed £l4O as the value of the cows, £541 as wages at the rate of £2 10s per week, £135 money lent, £SO as damages for wrongful seizure of the cows. Mr Mackersey said that during the four years and two months which plaintiff had worked for his father he had never received a single penny in wages. During the time he was there he stumped and ploughed 40 acres, sowed crops, and. did all the work that was necessary on a King Country farm. About Christmas time, 1920, plaintiff asked his father about the half share of the profits, when defendant said he did not think would be any profit that year. The father told him, however, to remain on the farm and he would see that he was well remunerated for all the work he had done and would do. When plaintiff got married he had no money ; of his own, but he borrowed some I from his uncle, while his father gave him 20 dairy cows, and he became a shareholder of the dairy company. When the milk cheques came in, however, the father borrowed half the amount of them. Later, when his wife was about to be confined, he tried to get some money out of his father for the work he had done, when defendant ordered both plaintiff and his wife off the farm, telling them they were only lodgers; and when plaintiff said he would take the 20 milk cows defendant told him that if he moved a hoof off the place he would have him prosecuted. Plaintiff said the arrangement with his father was as stated by his counsel. Plaintiff was to occupy and work the farm and his father was to remain in Te Kuiti, and to pay the farm a visit and assist in busy times. For a time his (plaintiff's) young brother worked on the farm, but he left because his father would give him no wages. Plaintiff had a few pounds left out of his war gratuity, and got £ls out of a mail contract. At Christmas, 1920, when he asked his father for a share of the profits, the latter replied that there were no profits. Plaintiff said he would have to go, but his father urged him to remain, and promised to give him a reasonable wage for all he had done and would do. Whenever he asked his father for money the latter always became angry. Finally, when his father told him to go he had no money and nowhere to take his. wife and child, who had to be accommodated by friends. The defence was a complete denial of the claim. Defendant held that there was no agreement to pay plaintiff afty wages. The understanding between them was that he (the father) should finance the farm and plaintiff should 'supply the labour, the profits of the farm to be shared equally between them, and as there was no profits nothing was due to plaintiff. The 20 cows were in no way a present to plaintiff, but were purchased with the object of providing pocket-money for the two boys, who were each to get a quarter of the profits, he (defendant) to get the ether half. He did not dismiss his son; plaintiff gave notice and left of his own free will. After a short retirement the jury gave a verdict for plaintiff for £l4O, the value of tho cows, £2O damages for their detention, £135 for moneys lent, and £338 for wages due.—Waikato Times.