A SHEARING DISPUTE.

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5359, 17 February 1916, Page 5

A SHEARING DISPUTE.

A case was heard in the Pahiatua S.M. Court yesterday, before Mr 1,. G. Reid, S.M., wherein Mohi Paratene, of Tutaekara,. and several other natives proceeded against F. C. Lewis, owner of “Estpourt,” Alfredtou. for an alleged breach of a shearing contract, and claimed the sum of £65. Tlie evidence given in support of the plaintiffs' claim .-ought to show that Lewis had engaged a gang of Maoris with Mohi (Moses) as.their head man, to do tlie defendant’s shearing this season, the price to be 22s 6d per 100 -heep. It was alleged that when the' natives ’went to commence work and mention wias made of the price, Lewis refused’to give the 22s 6d per 100. claiming that ht' had arranged with Koite. another Maori. to supply a gang to work at 19s 6d per 100 for lambs and £1 per 100 for big sheep. Koite in previous seasons had secured the necessary shearers for Lewis. The defendant and his fdrmer manager. Mr E. McLean, gave evidence that this arrangement had been made with Koite towards the end of last autumn. When the natives found out that Lewis was not going to pay the 22s 6d per 100 sheep, they refused to work for less, and when Koite, who was not a member of the gang this sea-on, went to see Lewis about the matter, at the request qf Moses, the owner of the sheep had in the meantime secured another quartette of shearers.

Moses endeavoured to show that the arrangement for 22s 6d per 100 was made in Mr Godfrey’s woolshed. where the gang were shearing prior to going to “Estcourt.” Koite stated that although he had arranged for the shearers in previous seasons, this season he had informed defendent in November last that lie would not undertake to secure the shearers required. Counsel for the defence /contended that the -Maoris should have gone on with the shearing, and claimed the amount in dispute after the shearing was finished. Evidence for the defence was given by E. McLean, W. Peterson and E. Henderson. Lewis, in his evidence, stated that when the dispute arose he offered tlie Maoris £1 per 100 and a bonus of 2.s 6d if the shearing was well done. He firmly believed that the arrangement he had made with Koite would lie carried out. In summing up, the Magistral remarktd that when a claim was made for damages, the claim had to he fully established by the plaintiff. In the present case there was a. clear conflict of evidence, the plaintiff keeping to the 22s 6d per 100- He thought there had l>een some misunderstanding on the part of the Maoris hut he thought there had been a little laxity on the part of defendant also. The plaintiffs would be non-suited, without costs. Mr Logan appeared for defendant, and Mr G. Harold Smith for the plaintiffs.