SHAREMILKING DISPUTE

Taranaki Daily News, 12 June 1930, Page 20

SHAREMILKING DISPUTE

JUDGE DISMISSES APPEAL. 'ECHO OF CASE AT ELTHAM. “My first observation is extremely pertinent,” said counsel in the Supreme Court yesterday, when opening an appeal from the magistrate’s decision at Eltham in connection with a sharemilking case. “My observation is that the case was conducted in the lower court by the appellant himself. On that account I ask for all the latitude your Honour can give me in arguing the matter.” His Honour dismissed the appeal, which was brought by J. G. Johnson, the owner of the farm, against J. Keegan, sharemilker. There had been a claim by Keegan for bonus moneys withheld and there was a counter-claim in connection with alleged breaches of a sharemilking agreement. In announcing that he could not disturb the findings of the magistrate the judge said he appreciated the position of counsel for Johnson in .not having come into the case sooner. He had done the best he could in the circumstances. Two appeals had been filed in connection with the matter. Both went in favour of Keegan, who was allowed £lO 10s costs and disbursements. Mr. A. Stewart represented Johnson, the appellant, and Mr. A. Chrystal appeared for Keegan, the respondent. Mr. Chrystall was not called on to reply. Mr. Stewart said the case in the lower court had been based on a home-made sharemilking agreement made on October 9. This said that Keegan should have 35 cows and that he was to milk them till the end of May. According to the evidence, when he started there were 23 cows, 22 of which were in milk. Keegan had said other cows were provided in twos and threes up to Christmas, but that he never had more than 33. Counsel maintained, however, that there actually were 35 cows. The last one received was said by Keegan to be no good and was wrongfully sold by him with another cow on March 19. Johnson, he said, had appealed on law on the claim, but the only law point counsel could find was that the sharemilker had entirely failed to prove his case in the lower court and that the findings of the magistrate on the facts were demonstrably wrong. He proceeded to analyse, the evidence at length in connection both with the claim and the items in the counterclaim. His Honour observed that it seemed Keegan never had more than 33 cows. Even if "Johnson had the best excuse for not making up the number that did not absolve him from the terms of the agreement. He did not think there was much in the appeal on law. • The magistrate had found the facts and this court was bound by them. Mr. Stewart had been handicapped in the first place through not being present at the lower court proceedings.