PATEA S.M. COURT

Patea Mail, 27 March 1936, Page 4

PATEA S.M. COURT

CLALM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. A special sitting of the Magistral ids Court was held on Wednesday before Mr. .1. H. Salmon, E.AL, when tin l adjourned ease V. N. Richards v. A. N. Williams, claim for £27 11 s sd, with a counter claim of £7 2s was heard. Air. Burns (Ha w era) appeared for the plaintiff and Afr. Hamel for the, defendant, Howard Wills gave evidence to the effect that he worked for plaintiff for five months up to the end of 1934. Richards, in witness’ opinion, looked after the farm 'efficiently. Witness found him a very good man to work for. To Air. Hamel: Witness was IS years of age and had worked on; several farms. Witness had not had any difference with Einhards. Ho had never thrown a, spanner at witness. Ho had never accused witness of stealing money or clothing, Tliis closed the plaintiff’s case. Mr. Hamel, in outlining the defence, said evidence would be brought to show that plaintiff had been guilty of incompctency and had used insulting language to his employer. With reference to the counter claim it would be proVcd that he did self timber, the property of plaintiff, and did damage do a motor truck, also the property of plaintiff.

Rang! Huninui, for the defence, said lie was an unemployed labourer. He had been several times employed on Air Williams’ farm. Just before the trouble arose witness was employed by Richards to help milk the cows. Richards was cruel to them, thrashed them with wire and booted them. This happened 'when the cows wore in the baij. ft. was a regular thing and did not happen only once. Witness remonstrated with Ricluuds, and he replied ho would con trainsto do it. It - affected The result from the cows. Some of flic cows ran round the yard and were hard to get into the, bail. Wit l ness worked on the farm before Richards was in charge, when 1 the cows wire easier to get into the bail. They wore easier ‘to milk, too. The Whole of the cows were docile when Air. Luckstedt was in charge, but were not docile when plaintiff was in charge.

To Air. Burns: Air. Williams asked witness to give evidence. Witness never saw Luckstedt cnrel to the cows. There, was one cow so wild that it could only be milked by Richards. When Air. ■ Luckstedt was managing tho cows came into tho yard of their own accord. .Witness had no idea how ■much milk plaintiff got. Luckstedt told witness to go and not come back again, but afterwards witness wont

back again. A. X. Williams stated that he was the; lessee of the farm at Otauto on which he carried on the business of dairy farming. Witness 1 supervised the work on the farm. Some time prior to November, 1934, plaintiff .was working for ‘witness under a manager, and witness gave him a*chanco as manager in 1934. Plaintiff was to receive £l7 a month ;and iind a mail, but not to got boys. Witness also stipulated that ho was to pay not less than £1 a week. Plaintiff whs allowed milk, vegetables, an'd firewood. In addition, he was to havo four pigs, two at each farrowing. He Was allowed to use the lorry once a week to come into town and get his groceries. The lorry whs licensed from peptembcir 1 to May 31 in each year. Plaintiff was not allowed the use of the lorry when, it was not licensed. Eichards was quite aware*of this. Witness told him himself. Eichards for two or * three months ;dicl; his work really well, but later slipped bach. Witness was away in Australia, and on his return lie paid a visit to the farm and had a look round. He pointed oat. to Richards that 'certain work had to be done. He always had some little excuse for if not being' done. Witness told him to pull himself together/as he wanted the -work done. Witness taxed plaintiff with having rim into a motor lorry cm coming liack from a dance/ at Opaku. He denied it at first, but he rurally admitted- ho had had an accident. Witness had the estimate.’produced from Messrs. McCarty and Hunger with regard to repairs to the lorry. Some time after plaintiff denied selling battens off the place to a main called Broughton. Ho asked witness for informant’s name, and witness gave it to him. Eichards 'was in a bad temper at the time, and on going along to the informant, who was a native, Eichards asked if ho had told witness that plaintiff had sold battens to hini, and the native, denied it. There was no suggestion at any time that plaintiff - hugl sold battens in exchange for a horse, as there were, two horses on the farm. Witness would not have permitted the arrangement. Plaintiff’s work did not improve. In November Eichards came at .10 p,m. to witness’ home and stated that his man had left him and “gone mad.” Ho asked that Luckstedt. come and help milk. Witness and Luckstedt wont out. aiid assisted with the milking. On November 4 witness again went out to the. farm. Plaintiff then had two natives helping him. Eichards was going off at onv cow not giving her milk. The others seemed disturbed. The cow was one of the quietest on the place. Witness told 'Eichards he would have to bo kinder, to the men, as he had' hud seven in seven months. immediately Eiehards flared up aiid used bad language. Witness spoke to plaintiff: kindly. Plaintiff 'was very threatening, and -said he would leave ou the Witness replied that would leave that bight. Plaintiff’ asked what, about his groceries, and witness replied he would pay him a fair price. Witness then went to the house and took stock and agreed with plaintiff upon a price. Witness then broughtplaintiff into Patea ou the lorry. Plaintiff took tho cheque and said nothing.

He seemed very sorry for himself. Plaintiff received three weaner pigs, worth from 12s to 1-ls. Witness had occasion to comment on the way the pigs .were kept. The styes were filthy, Richards did a little ragwort cutting, but not much. It was worse now than ever it had been. Plain-tiff had no occasion to hire plant for hay-making. There was no cow lost in the flood. It was lost prior to that.. Another cow died from mammitis, and a third died from a broken leg. Witness never received any money from pigs sold to Hills. Witness never told plaintiff he was pleased with the way lie was managing the place. Plaintiff employed about six men in 12 months. Einhards had always some excuse: for Hacking the men. He said he had sacked Wills because he could not trust him. Ho said lie would not pay him his wages until he had returned a pair of pants. When Luckstedt was manager one could go up to any of the cows in the paddock, hut when Kichards managed the farm they could not go near the cows. Kichards dill not increase the production from the farm. In 1934 it was 1557411) butter-fat, and in 1935 14,0391 b. Witness instructed plaintiff to 1111 in the cow yard, but he had not done so. To Air. Burns: Witness sacked Eichards for disgusting and filthy language. Had ho carried out his duties he would have continued. He would have been dismissed at the. end of the year with the ordinary month’s notice. Witness- adhiitted that £.l 11s 5d should not have been deducted, and witness had handed the, amount to Air. Hamel. Witness had let the matter of the battens slide. The truck matter was also allowed to slide. Witness had not mentioned the matter of £5 repairs to lorry to plaintiff, as he would probably have left witness in the lurch. Witness would not have made a claim on Richards bat for his action, as witness did not think the matter worth The -writing in the diary produced was witness’. It was to show how ho Was to keep his account for unemployment purposes. The £3 7s ,Gd shown for a- month’s wagc;s in the diary was to show plaintiff how to keep the account. Witness •know that plaintiff was not paying more than 15s per week. Pigs had been sold to a Air. Hills. Witness . •wo-uW not admit that plaintiff had improved the farm. He had only increased the number of paddocks by one. Ho had not done much better with the pigs tham Lu-ckstedt. He had not the sows to do this. Ho only had four in the first place. Plaintiff had not explained about the horses when witness a skied about the battens. Witness had hired Broughton’s horses later. With regard to the jiiitcrviciw with Richards, witness did not use bad language to him. Witness had been ini charge of men for. 21 years and had never used bad language to them. Witn-css. went out to tell Richards he had to improvie. Ids conduct towards his employees. Witness was gdiug to talk to' him in a fatherly way. Witness .'was not a vindictive man. Witness '• remembered the last court day, and was very annoyed with the action of the Borough Council. Witness had not boasted he was going to cut the light off. His wife rang up the Town Clerk and said she was -going to have it cut off, but it had not been cut off.

To His Worship: The date of farrowing was in January a aid July or August. The young pigs would be weaners. .about the end of November. Had plaintiff been With witness another few weeks he would have bean entitled to more .pigs.- ,

J. H. Hills said ho wais, a farmer at Otauto, near -Mir. Williams'’ property. He had purchased two pigs from Richards in February, 1933. • Witness paid 24s for the two. He paid Richards by cheque, but did not’got a receipt. Richards said they were his, pigs. To Mr. Burns: The cheque was made out on February 8. It was not in November, 1934. The pigs were about 7 or'B weeks old. Richards had got some hay from 'witness for a cow with mamrnitis.

. James Brennan stated that he knew Mr. Williams ’ farm. He .wont there in .November last to milk the< epwsi imtil -Mr, Williams got a man. Witness ha'd to’ look after the pig styes. - There were four styes anid a dead pig in each stye. They had been dead between a week and a fortnight. The sows were in the styes with the dead pigs. The styes were not fit for pigs. Witaclss had spent 25 years farming and had never scon anything like it. He would not permit a man fo keep pigs that way. Witness found a pig outside the door of the cowshed that had been buried, and become exposed. The same day 1m found a dead calf about two chains from the house. The smell was very bad, and witness had to’ bury it. It was customary to fill in the front of the cowshed each your. No filling had been done at the cowshed at tho farm. Witness went out to the iarih two days after Richards loft. Witness was certain it was the > 2sth. The cows were a bit nervous and got better.

Tommy Broughton-, siiid ho was a dairy farmer living at Otauto. He knew Mr Williams and Mr. Richards well, and know Mr. Williams!' farm. He remembered approaching Richards and asking him to sell him some battens. Ho agreed to soil him 300 at 6s per 100 delivered. This was about May, UCii). Richards duly delivered the battens in> 'Mr. Williams’ truck. They were honeysuckle battens. Witness ‘was told they wore, from Williams’ farm. Heady all tiro honeysuckle in the district was on this farm. Ho paid Close £.l and he gayo him 2s change about a week later. Richards said if Mr: Williams heard about the buttons to say witness had lent, him his horses. Actually ho had not, although some time since ho had lent them. Richards .killed a pig for witness, who promised him 3s for a satisfactory job ' and 2s 6d otherwise.

tic made a satisfactory job and witness paid him .'ss. Richards had been up to witnioss place once or twice about the\case. .Witness did not discuss it with him much, as he did not want to {jet tangled up in it. Cross-examined: Witness paid Richards 3s for scalding the pig. The money paid to Close was for the battens. Richards did not have the loan of witness’ horses for ploughing. Witness hud tiro loan of Richards’ bike. He paid for this in potatoes. Richards came to see witness in connection with the 'case. Witness' did not tell him Mr. Williams had promised him £8 and how much would he. give him. He had paid him £2 lus for ploughing. This was about three weeks before last court dav.

Harry Luckstcdt, step-sou of Mr. Williams, said he worked for him and managed his property at Otauto for some time. He assisted his father in the casing business. Richards su’ecevdod him on the farm I when he cam.o into Paten. While Richards was manager witness would occasionally inspect the farm. Witness tolel him to do different jobs on the farm from time to time. - He did not always do them. Witness knew of the arrangement between his step-father and Richards. Richards was to get £l7 a month and four pigs a year. To his knowledge he had got three pigs l . The valu’s of weaner pigs (was about 12s to I4s, Richards told him on one occasion. he had sold his two pigs too soon.. He sold them to Mr. J. Richards, Otai'to. Witness 'remembered when Richards loft. He and his stepfather inspected the farm on Monday, November -1, in the evening. Richards had finished milking and was •cutting wood. His step-father spoke to him of the management of the farm and said Richards would have to treat the men with more tact. The treatment he gave them was not good. Richards became; very abusive. Mr. Williams was not abusive. Richards made use of certain expressions and threatened 'witness and Mr. Williams, and said he would leave immediately. Hc. weirt to the house with witness and Mr'. Williams and collected his belongings. 'They took a check of the stocks in the house and agreed to pay Richards for them. 'They took Richards to Patea. Witness went to Broughton, who told him Richards had sold him 300 battens. When Mr. Williams asked Richards if he had sold the battens, in witness’ presence, Richards denied it. • Mr. Williams also asked Richards how he had damaged the lorry, and Richards said he had run. into Mr, R. Adams ’ .car, driven by iveitli Fitz,water, in the evening after a dance at Opaku. There were 13 paddocks on the. farm when Richards took over the management. Since then Richards had pv t up one new ivaee. When Richards loft witness took Tim Close and J. Brennan from Patea to the farm to do the milking, two days after Richards ’ dismissal. - They remained at the farm about a , week. Cross-examined; Witness could not remember if Richards ploughed in May. The ploughing was only partially done when Richards left. Payne complained to Mr.. Williams of Mr. Richards’ treatment of him, and Mr. Williams spoke of this to Richards. Mr, Williams used no bad language to. Richards. ‘

Owen Goodsou Close, freezing works employee, Fatoa, said lie was formerly employed by Eichards on Williams’ farm at Otauto at 10s a week and , keep, rising later to 15s. He went out about tire end of March, 1935, and left on June 7 to go. into hospital. At first he had no difficulty about wages, but when he came out of hospital he did. He assisted Eichards to fell a honeysuckle tree, split it into battens, anil load them on a lorry. There were 300. Ho saw Eichards take them away in the lorry. Eichards gave him 2s a few days after to take up to Broughton’s and get £1 for the battens. Witness got the £1 the'second time he went to Broughton’s, and gave it to Mr. Eichards. Witness occasionally went into town and went to - dances at Opaku and Waveiiey, and the tugs of war ut Whcmiakura, Manutahi, and Alton. • , Cross-examined: Eichards told ‘witness that ,the £1 from Broughton, less the 2s, was in ■payment of the battens. Witness helped Richards to kill the pig for Broughton. Witness found Eichards a good boss, who treated him all right. ■ . ■This concluded the- evidence and His Worship reserved his decision. A NATIVE' CASE. In the case Wirrnnu Wercta, H. Bongoiiui, T. ITnancwa; M. Bhngi, -K. Ivukuwai, Eangi Hauora, E. Koro, and T. Koro, v. C, O’Reilly for £lB 7s lUd, His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiffs for £l6 10s, loss £7 18s lOd, paid into court by defendant. Costs wore allowed. plaintiffs for £i 17s 9.d, .solicitor’s fee .31a, witness’ expenses £2 16s 6d, loss 15s costs already paid.