AT LONG LAST

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 80, 30 June 1928, Page 5

AT LONG LAST

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED, BARLOW V, BUSBY. SHARE-MILKING DISPUTE. Hearing of the case Busby v . Barlow was continued in the Stratford Court before Mr. Jl. W.Tate, S.M., yesterday afternoon.

Mr. O’Dea appeared for Busby and Mr. Coleman for Barlow.

Hearing of evidence was practically concluded, but short evidence on one point lias still to be given. Cbunsel has still to address the Court, but Mr. O’Dea announced that his address will not occupy more than a quarter of an hour. Recalled ojn resumption of the Court, Busby stated that since leaving H-irlow is employ on ' February 20th he had 1 been a unable to secure employment until last • ■ Saturday, when he got a milking job. busby cross (EXAMINED

To Mr. Coleman: When witness asked for wire for the .- race fence, Barlow said he intended to metal the race and- put up a post and hail fence, so that he did not care to spend money on it a .t that time. Witness could not believe that the -wire in the fence had since been strained. A sum of £9O may have been spent on doing up the house a -year before witness went to the farm, but for all' that nearly all the rooms in the house were leaking. It was not possible that Phillips could have got .the ragwort he had produced from the edge of a crop. The witnesses who said that some ragwort had not been cut after witness left were not telling the truth. It wa§ untrue that witness got his cows in at 3 a.m. Witness Fowler w»a s not correct in stating that witness got to the factory at 6.30 a.m. Witness had never told Mr. Cook, Stock Inspector, that he brought his cows in at 3 a.m. Barlow never asked witness to get the cows in later, but Pliillips did. He could not say why Phillips did so. Each day witness got out to work in the paddocks about IO a.m. and he worked until 3.30 p.m., when he went for tjae cows. There were gullies on the farm, but there was no water in them beyond seepage. On neighbouring farms there was no water. Barlow could' have put in ai ram for £3O, but would! not do so, It was not true that witness bad ordered certain slag to be carted away and dumped under a log. If witness bad 1 resired to get rid of the slag he could have spread it over the ground where it was in less than ten minutes. When Barlow was notified to pick the calves witness bad. not decided to leave the farm. It would be .about January 3rd. -Williams and Cathie were quite wrong in their estimate of the value of the calves. Mr. Coleman; It is cheering to. know that something good.came off, the farm.

Witness; When I rear calves I do if properly. Most people do not feed' their calves properly. Mr. ColeJman: They must have c pmo from yood cows. Witness; There were some good cows and some very poor oriels — 3' on could not call them cows at allQUESTION OF LABOUR.

Continuing, witness said that on. no oedision did Barlow demand that witness employ, labour. When the agreement was made Barlow asked that witness should have a man for the whole season, but witness declined, and gave Barlow permission to put men on at witness’ expenses it the work was not done. If labour bad been required Barlow would very Boon have put it on. Witness told Ixancely he could not be retained after • the cows started to 'go down. Income from milk for 26 weeks amounted to £212. After that all the work Barlow now claimed for hac t 0 be done, and witness would not get much, money from milk then. Witness didj not know that since he had left Barlow had P aid 10s a week in wages to get work done on the farm which witness should have done under his agreement. ' There was no truth in the statement tbut on January 25th witness produced a piece of paper and said: “You ve terminated the agreement—sign tins. After witness left, if Barlows return of milk increased by a thousand pounds, that was probably because Barlow put the cows on the other farm land also fed °utMr. Coleman; I am told that the cows were not run on the ot id Witness: I saw them there- myContinuing, witness said while ho was on the farm were milked and stripped piopeih, and treated properly in all respects. The poor results were entuely _ result of the lack of water and feed.

CONCLUDING EVIDENCE. Eva Towers, sister of pjtiiutiff Bushy, gave evidence regarding the argument between Bushy and Barlow regarding the staples and the ladder. Witness and Mis s Busby were within hearing. Witness had never seen

young Barlow and Adlam together on tne tarin.

Uross-examuied: Witues could not remember an argument between Barlow and Mrs- Pus by at the Poor of the (Jlub Hotel on January 21st, on me occasion of the payment of Busby’s January cheque. May Busby, wile of plaintiff, gave evidence that she helped with the farm work, including the cutting of ragwort. Barlow came out to the farm almost every day of the week. Barlow had teen on the farm when the cows were brought in, but had never complained thUt they should be brought in later. Mr. Coleman: Your husband seemed over-sensitive in throwing up liiis job because of what Barlow said. Witness: I would not have stood half my, husband did. Mr. Coleman: Your husband claims £SO for loss of employment. Would it not have been better to stay on an f 1 earn the money-

Witness: I wouldn’t have stayed on for a hundred pounds. Niggers wouldn’t work for Barlow, let alone inert.

Tliis concluded the evidence, with the exception of certain rebutting evidence as regards the alleged dismissal, which is to be taken later at Hawera.

Mr. Coleman said his further evidence was in the direction of proving tlfit on January 25th, when the alleged dismissal took place, Barlow was not on the farm.