CLAIM BY SHARE-MILKER.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 400, 18 May 1922, Page 5

CLAIM BY SHARE-MILKER.

INTERESTING DAIRYING CASE,

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL.

His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, presided at the Supreme Court ibis morning, when Robert McGreen Thomson, labourer, of Pahiatua, who was represented by Mr Smith, proceeded against, William Rennie Ross, farmer, of Hanma, for the sum of £125 as damages for alleged wrongful dismissal. Mr Cooper appeared for defendant,

The statement of claim alleged (1) that defendant employed plaintiff under agreement for a period of one year, from July 1, 1919. to June 30, 1920,'f0r the purpose of managing and working the defendant's dairy farm; (2) the employment continued alter June 30. 1920. without any new agreement. On June 26, 1921. the defendant gave the plaintiff verbal notice that the services of the last-named would not be required after June 30, 1921. (3) The plaintiff's remuneration was a third share of the defendant's profits from the dairying business, and during the two years of his employment, it amounted to £SOO a year.

The statement of defence denied the allegations in paragraphs 1 and 2, but admitted that prior to July 1, 1919, an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant for share-milking, under which the plaintiff agreed to take over the defendant's herd from July 1, 1919, and to milk the same during the (then) coming milking season, on the terms set out in the agreement. The other allegations were not disputed, except thai, notice was given of the termination of plaintiff's employment on June 19 instead of June 20 as alleged. It was also denied that plaintiff's remuneration had amounted to £SOO. Plaintiff deposed that prior to July 1, 1919, he was employed by defendant, al a wage of £4 per week, under an agreement. Before the end of the second year of plaintiff's employment, witness asked defendant for a rotation of work to be done during the third year. Witness decided io bring his mother from the South Island to live with him, and alter she bad been thcro about three weeks witness received notice thai bis term of employment would terminate ai the end of the month. S\ itness spoke to defendant in reference io theinatter, but the defendant persisted in bis intention that witness would have to go. Witness's net profit during his first year of employment totalled £'l79 10s. and for the second year £431. After leaving-de-fendant's employ plaintiff obtained a. position as share-milker for a man named Allwood. He look the position under an agreement similar to that which he had signet! with defendant. In his new position the herd was not of the same class of cows as those he had milked for plaintitl, which were a first-class lot.

His Honour: Can you submil a comparative return showing the amount of butterfat supplied from each farm for a period oi six months?

Counsel: We will furnish that later, your Honour

Continuing, witness said iho returns, when furnished, would show thai iho cows milked u\\(\cv the second contract were not nearly as profitable as those owned by defendant.

To Mr Cooper: Witness commenced his contract with Mr Alhvood on Angus! 1, under an agreement which allowed tic same proportion, or share, of profit as had been allowed by defendant. Mr Allwood's herd was noi so good because be had sold off iho best cows. Witness hail "bought in" some of (he best cow.- at the sale, these animals noi; having been bid for at a sufficiently high price. This year (.he price of butlerfat war: much lower than it was la.-t year, and it was probable thai defendant was not receiving the same proportion of profit as he had done previously. His Honour: It seems to mo that the whole case turn.-, upon the point as to what plaintiff would lo>e owing to his not having received reasonable notice. Witness, on resuming his evidence under cross-examination, said the milking season meant the. season whin farmers began to milk, llis agreement started on duly 1 (in respect of defendant), but the local cheese factory was, not. open at that time, and supplies wore sent to Masierton. Tin: Rexdale factory opened on about August 9 or 10, and it closed during the first week in June of the following year. This was the case in both year;, during which witness milked for defendant. Witness said thai, as a general rule, November, December and January were the best, milking month". Generally,' iho July and August milking returns were small—receipts showed thai £SO 0s lid had been received in September, and £B7 6,7 d in October, £97 12s 5d in November and £79 7s 4d in December. Witness had asked for (he rotation of work at about the end of May. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Cooper submitted that this was not a case its between master and servant. The contract, was an independent one for service. The contractor was in no wa\ subject, to orders or directions of the oilier person under such an agreement, lie submitted that the plaintiff had been encaged for the milking season and for nothing elsi —not, for twelve months. However, he could not submit that there was a recognised understanding of the term "milking sea-on," eke he would have brought evidence to substantiate this. Evidence would not be called.

His Honour said he could not sen thai this poii it maltored, because in this case tin. season had lasted for a whole year. Il< would consider the ease, hut. the facts concerning supplies as affecting the two herds would'have to be submitted to him. The court then adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow.