Sharemilking Agreement Broken

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 196, 21 August 1935, Page 10

Sharemilking Agreement Broken

SEQUEL HEARD IN COURT A broken sharomilking agreement was the subject of a civil action heard by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Palmerston North yesterday. PlaintifE was Airs. Eva Shannon, of Newbury, represented by Air. G. Kells, who claimed £125 as damages, while defendant was Leslie K. Sanders, of Ashhurst, sharemilker (Air. T. E. Relling), who counter-claimed for £(53 ,14s 2d, representing moneys allegedly due.

Plaintiff alleged that, by an agreement entered into in writing on August 25, 1934, defendant agreed to work for her as a sharemilker for a term ot three years from August I, 1934. On January 31 defendant, she alleged, wrongfully terminated the agreement and refused to milk her cows or to carry out other work on the farm iu terms of the agreement. As a result, plaintiff had to employ labour and incur expense in milking the cows' and carrying out the work on the farm, and had been put to much trouble and inconvenience and had lost the profits from the farm.

For a further cause of action, plaintiff said it was a term of the agreement that the sharemilker should supply her with the correct dates of service of the cows aud the name of the buli used, and also should keep a correct record of the actual dates of calving and hand over such records to the employer when requested to do so. All cows were to bo dried off by the sharemilker six weeks before calving. Defendant, it was claimed, kept such a record, but refused to deliver it to plaintiff when so requested. Plaintiff therefore claimed iu respect of the first cause of action tho sum of £75 damages, aud in respect of the second cause of action the sum ol’ £SO. Defendant's counter-claim was for the following items: Quarter share of milk sold in January, £24 0s Gd; quarter share factory cheques for January, £2 17s 7d; share for calves, £l2 10s; moneys retained by plaintiff (5 per cent.), £8 His 7d; repairs to plaintiff’s lawninower paid by defendant, 9s Gd; share of bonus from factories, £ls. Plaintiff admitted her liability to pay the amounts mentioned in the counterclaim, with the exception of £1 7s 7d in respect of milk sold.

Defendant claimed that lie had not terminated the agreement, but that he had been told to go. He had started work for plaintiff before the agreement had been drawn up, being shown a copy of a previous agreement under which The sharemilker was to get onethird of the proceeds. Eater an agreement between plaintiff and defendant was drawn up by the former’s solicitors under which ho was to receive onequarter of the proceeds, but Air. Shannon verbally promised him one-third for the first three months, which proportion he subsequently received. His reason for accepting one-quarter, instead of onc-tilird, was that Air. Shannon told him that all the milk was supplied to vendors and not to the factory, and that, as a result, a better price was received. On Boxing Day, defendant said, there had been a row between him and Air. Shannon, followed by another on January 3, when Air. Shannon had told him to get to out of it; that he had another man to take his place, and that lie would give £lO to see defendant off the property. On January 7 defendant asked Air. Shannon certain questions about the working of the farm aud was told that the next man could attend to the matters raised. Later that day, believing that he would have to have another position by the end of the month, defendant replied to an advertisement for a sharemilker. He obtained the position and left at the end of the month. Regarding the calving dates, he had refused to hand over the record until lie was paid £.12 10s owing in respect of his share ter calves Dross-examined, defendant admitted that the agreement provided for liis receiving notice from Airs. Shannon.

After hearing evidence lasting foul hours, his Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £sl 4s 7d on the claim and for defendant for £6l 17s Id on the counter-claim, leaving a balance of £7 12s Gd in favour of defendant. Sanders, ho found, loft his employment without giving notice, but the amount claimed by plaintiff as damages was excessive. In regard to whether there was an agreement that defendant should repay the difference between one-quarter aud one-third of the proceeds for the first, three months, his Worship did not, feel inclined to allow the amount. On the second cause of action, defendant had not been right in holding back documentary records which were essential tor the carrying on of the farm, but the amount claimed by plaintiff was again excessive.