HAWERA NEWS.

Taranaki Daily News, 15 December 1924, Page 2

HAWERA NEWS.

SHAREMILKER AND MASTER, DEFINITION OF RELATIONSHIP. MAGISTRATE’S JUDGMENT. ('From Our Own Reporter.) Hawera, Dec. 12. In view of the great number of disputes between herd owners and sharemilkers, some interesting advice on the conduct of the relationship between sharemilkers and their masters was given by Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., when delivering judgment on a dispute at the Hawefa Court yesterday. The case was a claim by Lambert, a sharemilker, for £BB 12s lid, a balance of milk moneys, from Jacob Fryer, the owner, and a counter-claim by Fryer for £162 for damages alleged to have been incurred by Lambert’s laziness and neglect. The hearing has been spread over a considerable period, Mr. F. S. Spratt appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. G. J. Bayley for the defendant. The hearing was concluded yesterday, and after a short retirement Mr. Barton delivered his judgment. The claim being admitted by defendant, judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs.

As to the counter-claim, the magistrate remarked that there were claims under seven headings, and In each of these claims the onus of proof was on the defendant Fryer. He was satisfied that the relation between the .parties was that of master and servant and ■that the agreement for share milking was an oral agreement, and the fact that some time had elapsed between the dafe of 'the alleged breaches of the agreement and the bringing of the counterclaim had given him-some difficulty. Dealing -with the item for neglect of lucerne ( £3O), the magistrate held that it was proved that the lucerne was not a good crop, and that the plaintiff did all that he might reasonably be expected to do in the circumstances. He was not an expert at making ensilage, and had engaged an outsider .to do the work who had previously done similar work successfully. Mr. Goodson had. seen this stack, but he had examined it after Lambert had gone out, and he thought that if any damage had been dbne to the stack by cows it was probably during the period when the farm was empty, between Lambent’s going out and the new sharemilker coming in.

The claim for pigs, £lO, the magistrate held had not been proved. As to the alleged failure to sow down certain land in grass, there was no clear definition of what the obligation of the plaintiff was, and therefore defendant failed on this counter-claim also. There was a similar failure to prove any loss in respect of the claim for the negligence of plaintiff in drying off cows before they should have been dried off ( £3O). The remaining claims were in respect of negligent treatment of two acres of carrots and half an acre of mangolds, a total of £BO. This part of the claim occasioned. His Worship the greatest difficultly. The evidence pointed to a certain amount of neglect and failure to weed, but he must hold that the defendant had not discharged the onus that was upon him. There was a great deal of conflict of evidence; several witnesses thought there was a good take of carrots and mangolds and others said tlxit there was not. He felt thßt he could not accept one set of witnesses rather than another. There w r as also conflict of evidence on -this point between plaintiff and defendant, and the plaintiff’s evidence was supported by that of Locker. In the circumstances h? must hold that defendant had failed to prove this claim also.

The magistrate added that he had had a number of aljaremilking cases before him, and he was satisfied that there was only one way in which an owner could succeed in bringing such a claim as this against a sharemilker. First the owner should enter into a written agreement with the sharemilker in which would be defined the rights and duties of each party. Secondly, the owner should be prompt in seeking his remedies. If a breach should take place during the agreement, such as, for instance, failure to weed, the owner should not allow the season to run out before making any complaint, but he should at once write a letter and put on record his requirements and his complaint, so that the sharemilker would know immediately that the owner was taking exception to the way he performed” his duties. To come to court in December as to what had happened in January would always result in a conflict of testimony, and after a lapse of time it was always difficult to arrive at the true evidence. In the present case a further difficulty was that the owner was not a farmer, and at the expiry of the milking season was not at hand to take over delivery of the farm and to settle matters that might later on give rise to a dispute. In the event judgment must be for the plaintiff for both claim and counterclaim, together with costs of the action and witnesses’ expenses.

STARR -BOWKETT SOCIETY. THE ANNUAL MEETING. The twenty-second annual meeting of the Hawera Starr-Bowkett Society was held last night, Mr. F. Squire (chairman) presiding over a fair attendance of shareholders. The annual report stalled; —“In spite of the apparently poor conditions of trade, our society has been a'ble to maintain its activities on a very satisfactory footing. The first group, which has now passed its 22nd yea ’, is coming within sight of conclusion. There are now only 211 shares on the register, held by 91 members, and of these 49 shares remain to be appropriated. Of the appropriated shares 31 have discontinued subscriptions, which leaves 180 shares to participate in the' profits. Owing to the fact that only one appropriation was bid for on sale during the year it has not been possible tn accumulate profits, as the whole of the appropriations have been made by. ballot. The second group continues t< maintain the highest total profit on its working, its position, and has this year earned namely £4BO IBs 4d. Shareholders have held on to their shares exceedingly well, and very few have forfeited under stress straightened cirouhnstances. The third groulp has been again able to show a profit, although forfeited shares have helped materially to this end. The premiums obtained, however, ip the gi’oup have been very ■ satisfactory/ and’

with an extra sale coming into the next year’s working, the group should continue to earn a profit.” The report and balance-sheet were adopted. The retiring directors, Messrs. F. Squire, J. Rauch, and M. Barraclough, were re-elected unopposed. Mr. C. M. Haggett was re-appointed auditor. The remuneration of the directors was fixed at £75, to he allocated amongst the three groups as the directors decide. The appropriation of several sums was then proceeded, with by ballot and sale. In the ballot for £6OO in the first group in four sums of £l5O each, Mr. \V. J. Guerin, of Wellington, drew the first marble, and as he was the holder of another share he was entitled to £3OO. Mrs. M. Vizer, being the holder of one share, drew successfully, and was entitled. to £l5O. Mr. G. L. Villars, being the holder of two shares, drew the remaining £l5O, and will be entitled to the next £l5O available. A sale of £4OO in the second group in two sunns of £2OO each and. £4OO in the third group in two similar sums, was conducted by Mr. J. C. Smith. Mr. 0. H. King -was the purchaser of both sums in the second group at a premium of £lOO for each £2OO. The purchaser of the two sums appropriated in the third group was Mr. H. Robinson, at a premium of £6l for each £2OO.

PROLIFIC DAIRY SEASON. INCREASE OF ,6.179 PER CENT. The dairy season in South Taranaki, with the advance of the season, continues to be wonderfully prolific, and the indications are that the production of produce will be equal to, if not in excess of the record output of the season before last. Taking the figures for the Hawera Dairy Company (which may be taken as a fair criterion,of the general position) this season’s output from July 1 to Nov. 30, is 6.179 per cent,.adove that of the corresponding period. This per'centnge roughly represents the decrease of last years’ output from that of the previous year. From July 1 to November 30 of this year the Hawera, Company received 946,4821 b of butter-fat from milk supplied for cheese-making, As compared with 891,399 lbs for the corresponding period of last season. In addition, the company received 1-85,1501 b of cream this season, while none was received during the previous year. This does not materially affect the comparison, however, for very few milk suppliers have changed over lv cream.