AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 August 1921, Page 4

AN APPEAL DISMISSED.

SHAREMILKERS’ LIABILITY.

SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS.

An’appeal from the decision of the Magistrate (Mr. T. A. B. Bailey), made at Hawera in a dispute between an employer an I share-milkers, was heard in tne {S-ipremo Court, New Plymouth, last night, by Hia Honor Mr. Justice Salmond. The nppellant was Robert Johns, of Gkaiawti, for whom Mr. L. A. Taylor appeared, and the respondents were L. .and F. Reunion, who were represented by Mr. P. O’Dea. The lower court proceedings originated in a claim made by the Reardon? for £ll4, balance of bonus moneys, and Johns had counter-claimed for £l6B 7s lOd, for. costs and damages in respect of work which it was alleged was not carried out, though stipulated by the share-milking agreement. The Magistrate had given judgment for the Reardons for their claim, and allowed Johns £5O out of the counter-claim.

Appeal from this decision on law and fact was subsequently lodged by Johns. I Mr. Taylor said appellant had two farms, , one called the homestead, on which he personally lived, and another for which the Reardons were engaged. Owing to misfortune, through the death of his bod, Johns had to leave the homestead for a time, and this property was also taken over by respondents. Neglect was alleged in respect to certain management work. One of the items claimed was for the value of a boar which died, and which was unaccounted for to Johns. This was not allowed by the Magistrate, but counsel contended that respondents were in the position of a bailee and had to account for the stock. Another item was for trimming and lopping hedges. These hedges had been allowed to grow for some years, but the contract required respondents to cut them back. They had commenced a portion of the work, which was done in a satisfactory manner, but the remainder was not done. The Magistrate allowed only 4s per chain for the remainder of the work, which, counsel contended, was not sufficient.

For respondents, Mr. O’Dea said that the claim made by appellant in the trate’s Court had been cut down uecause the Magistrate was of opinion that Johns was “hungry.” He had held on to the sharemilkers’ moneys (amounting to over £100), for some time, and made the claim until the respondents commenced an action for the receiving of their money. Exceeding to review the items of claim, Mr. O’Dea defended the Magistrate’s judgment as allowing Johns as much, if not more, than he was entitled to.

His Honor said he was satisfied the appeal must be dismissed. On the question of the claim for the boar, counsel had raised the suggestion that a sharemilker was a bailee of stock. “I should have thought,” said His Honor, “that he is a servant of the land-owner, with whom the stock remains, and there is no bailment at all.” On the claim for fencing, His Honor upheld the Magistrate’s allowance, and pointed out that the clause providing for the lopping and trimming of hedges would be considered to mean the cutting of the year’s growth, and not the cutting back of the growth which had been allowed by the appellant to accumulate for some years.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs (£6 6s) to respondents.