WAIUKU.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 7, Issue 367, 12 April 1918, Page 1

WAIUKU.

SHARE MILKING DISPUTE

MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

At the Waiuku Magistrate's Court on Friday last Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M, gave his reserved decision in the case, heard at the previous sitting in which John Moorby, of Waiuku, share milker, claimed frbm Henare Kaihau, of Waiuku, farmer, the sum of £73 I/s, being two-fifths share of the sum of £18412s 6d, being SH per lb retained by the N.Z. Dairy Association, and paid to defendants Mr Dickson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Ostler for defendant.

The magistrate held that the plaintiff was milking the defendant's cows under an agreement in writing between the parties, whereby the defendant promised (inter to pay the milkers two-fifths share of factory cheque The plaintiff delivered all cream from defentant's cows to the N.Z. Dairy Association's- factory throughout the dairying year, commencing on Ist August, 1916. the defendant who was a shareholder in the association, being paid by the company therefore. The mode of payment adopted by the association during the last three years has been to pay to suppliers each month by cheques sent to the factory and from there up-lifted by the suppliers, a sum calculated upon the number of lbs of butterfat supplied during the preceding month at a rate, Or price, fixed somewhat below the market price, so as to leave, the association a margin of safety to guard against fluctuations of the market, difficulties arising from the shortage of shipping, etc. This method of payment has been adopted by the dairy Association since the war commenced so as to safeguard the company and so indirectly the shareholders. Most of the sharemilkers are also shareholders, but the plaintiff is not. During the year 1916-17 the plaintiff received from the defendant each month payment of two-fifths of the cheque paid by the Daily Association monthly to the defendant, such cheques were not sent by the association through its factory to the defendant, but were the subject of a special arrangement whereby they were paid into defendant's Bank account in Auckland. At the end of the 1916-17 milking season, when the company made up its accounts find came to distribute among its suppliers the money it had been holding back as a margin of safety, the defendant was entitled to receive (and did receive in three payments) a sum of £lB4 I2s 6d in respect of butter-fat delivered at the factory by the plaintiff. ' The plaintiff now claims under his agreement to receive two-fitfhs of that sum of £lB4 I2s 6d, that is £73 17s. The only point of difficulty involved in this case is the interpretation to be placed on the words "factory cheque," used in the agreement, for I am satisfied that there was not any verbal misrepresentation and that the plaintiff knew the wording of what he signed, The words are ambiguous without explanation, and have a special significance or trade meaning, when used in reference to a milking contract under which the butter-tat is supplied to a dairy company. Evidence was called at some length as to the past and present practice of dairy companies in the Waiukn district in distributing the moneys payable to their suppliers for but-ter-fat supplied during the season, from which it appears that there has always been a sum ot money coming to the suppliers from the Dairy Company at the end of the season, in addition to the cheques he had received each month. That deferred payment seems to have always been known as "the bonus." It is true that its nature has changed now, it is assessed on a different basis, and is held back for different reasons, but it still is known as a bonus. 1 had the testimony of several tanners in the district as to what is understood in the dairy farming community by the terms " factors cheque" and bonus." It was somewhat contradictory, but 1 think the weight of that evidence i in favour of the defendant namely, that it is customary among dairy farmers to reier to the factory cheque as meaning the cheque which tlie suppliers receive each month Irom the Dairy Company and which is paid over through the factory, and that the " bonus " is the money which the company has kept back till the end of the season. Such an interpretation gives a proper significance to the adjectival use of the word " factory," and is as near as possible the literal meaning of the words used. Such being the case the plaintiff has received all he was entitled to under his agreement, and the defendant must have judgement with co >ts.