CLAIM BY SHARE-MILKER.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 401, 19 May 1922, Page 5

CLAIM BY SHARE-MILKER.

JUDGMENT DFLIVFRED,

IN FAVOUR OF PLAINTIFF

At the Supreme Court this morning His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, delivered judgment in respect of an action heard yesterday morning. This was a claim by Robert McGeen Thomson, ol Pahiatua, labourer, for £125 damages for alleged wrongful dismissal by the defendant; William Rennie Ross, farmer, of llamua. Mr Smith appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Cooper for defendant, la Ihe course of his judgment His Honour stated that an agreement which had existed between the parties was, no doubt, a contract for service, and the agreement provided that the employee was ‘To take over the herd on July 1, 1919, and during the coming milking season agrees to milk, tend and care for the. cows of the employer, such herd to consist of about 80 cows and heifers.” The plaintiff took possession of the herd on the date mentioned. The profits were divided about every six months and at the end of the first year the parties continued on without anything being mentioned about a renewal or determination of the contract, the employee doing his work land receiving his payment. A few days before the end of the second year the employer stated that lie did not desire the services of the employee beyond June 30, 1921. The employee did not consent to Ills dismissal and contended that Ik; was entitled to notice. The question therefore was: Could the employer put an end to the contract at the end of lhe second year without notice? There was no doubt, in the opinion of His Honour, that this was a yearly hiring and the question was, therefore, whether, seeing that the second year was nearly finished, the employee was entitled to any notice. After reviewing tlie. decisions of various Supreme Court judges in other cases where questions of a similar nature were at issue, His Honour said there were two cases in New Zealand in the Supreme Court which supported the contention that reasonable notice must be given before a contract could he determined at the end of the second year, fie therefore felt bound to follow those decisions. Judgment would, therefore, be for the plaintiff for some damages. If tho parties could not agree on the amount of these, TIL Honour would fix what lie thought was a proper amount, Tho Court then adjourned til! 10 a.m, to-morrow.