CIVIL ACTION.

Northern Advocate, 21 September 1910, Page 4

CIVIL ACTION.

MILKING ON SHARES,

Jas. McDonald (Mr Steadman) v. Wm. Alison (Mr Moody, who was instructed by Mr Briggs), a claim, far £142 19s 10d. ••'

The plaintiff, a builder and contractor, residng at North Shore* said he entered into negotiations with Mr Alis .-n to milk on shares, and arrangements were made. Plaintiff arrived on the place and was told by defendant that he had 60 cows. A choice of a site for a house was offered out of two available. Witness, according to the first arrangement, was to have half shares in the milking. Alison said he was going into town on June 21st, and that he would then have an agreement drawn up by a solicitor. A rough draft of the agreement was drawn oat, and Mr Alison took it to his solicitcr. By the terms of the draft the defendant was to receive, instead of half shares, £250 per annum. The defendant was to provide all farm implements, a home for witness, and all necessary sheds. All earned over £250 was to go to witness. The agreement was never completed, though Alison was frequently askod about it. Damages amounting to £50 was claimed for breach of agreement. Witness had been making in Auckland between £200 and £300, and he expected to do well with Mr Alison, for he estimated the joint profits at about £750. Witness did a good d?al of carpentering work for Mr Alison, and also cleared a paddock. Certain claims made on defendant for travelling expenses were according to the award. Witness had visited a mill, the

property of defendant, and he hid charged him for two days' work "j c had done in tjijM lection. Later witness sent iSn and his tools to place the in order. There ."were about 4 cwt. of tools. Witness went to Whangarei to get estimates of the timber required for the mi l !, and hearing of certain plant for sale which would suit Mr Alison, he had inspected it and obtained quotations. Alison afterwards sola his farm and wanted to pay witness at the rate of £2 and his son at the rate of 15s w.-.v week, certain deductions being made for breakages. An offer was finaUy made for work done, which witness reNo money was paid by defendat all. Witness said that he wont JH'Mr Alison's with the intentton ot milking on shares. He claimed carpentry wages during time travelling to Mr Alison's because he was put to

work as a carpenter. Witness v >.s ' questioned at great length with reit .gard to his past earnings, Counsel endeavoring to test the veracity of his statement that he had been earning ■between £200 and £300. Witness said he could not give a detailed list of the carpentery worn: he had done; lie had kept a note of it, but had Mot the book with him, as he had forgotten to bring it. For clearing stumps, ■which was not carpentering, witness was claiming carpenter's While at this oJass of work he started at 6.30 a.m. and knocked off at 5.20 p.m. The award allowed carpenters Is 6d in addition to the ordinary waee for each day they were employed :n the country, and board and lodgings, and in addition all travelling expenses going to and from work. The son whom Mr Alison wanted to pay 15s p«ir week had been paid .8s per day ia Auckland. A man engaged as a carpenter must be paid carpenter's wages, no matter what work he was asked to do. He expected to receive the same pay for farm work as for carpenterIng. The son, for whom payment was y claimed, was his partner and was 17 -/ 2 years of age. Witness had communicated with the Inspector of Awards and reported Alison for not pay ng him his wages. Mr Ahson had never been made a party to the award, and the Department could not, therefore, take action. Prior to this witness had consulted his solicitor. Since leav ig Alison witness and his son had earned about £10, but for the greater pjrt-. ion of the time they wore unable to obtain work because they had no too^. Leonard McDonald, the son of :ne claimant, also gave evidence. (Left Sitting.)