SHAREMILKING DISPUTE

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1930, Page 3

SHAREMILKING DISPUTE

. 7 '• /- ../.--y: ’7< 7., CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. . ’'7 < £7 7 . ■. 7.V77-7 * ; 1 7'7-7 - 7 t __ 7 .... o.', ,// ; ., ( /7! ,7 ■ ■ ' 777...7 . . .... . ■ ■< ; ■ . RESERVED JUDGMENT GIVEN. '■ ■ ■' 7■ • . ■ ■ ■. . - ■ ' 7 ■-v. £"7 ''7 ' £ ■.£"•■; ’£ .£ :..7?7'„ ; .7 ■ . ; ' . ’ ■ ,7; . ■,J . ' .' ■’ .■ . ~ The end of the share;milking, dispute • ' between Paul Muller and Pauline Byrne,' both of Auroa, was heard in the.-Ha-wiera Magistrate’s Court yesterday when Mr. Ji. D. Stout, S.M., delivered, reserved .'i) judgment. In, a measure both parties were successful in their claim and epun-, ter-claim, the full amount not being " . granted in either ease, .. ‘ 7 The share^milkirig'agreement! stated .Mr. Stout, was a remarkably compre-j ;!. hensive and well -drawn/document but, in the signing of such an agreement the> share-milker had put himself to a large extent in the. hands of the owner/ An. unusual feature of- the case was that../ .1 plaintiff for three years before he entered into the agreement had been employed by defendant on wages. Admittedly lie. had been a. good workman and had given satisfaction/, yet it / was alleged that under the agreement, as a \share-milker he proved unreliable and' £ negligent. This involved a point of'psychology, £s The defendant was justified and with-.’.'.;- ,' in her powers In terminating the agreement as.' she did. before- the end! oft the i/ term. It followed that plaintiff was not entitled to any part of the milk after May 31, 1930. On this claim he was entitled to-recover only £Bl. 3s .7d. Various other smaller .items were! allowed, bringing the total judgment off ) the claim for .£177 18s Id to £94 15s I’d. ’ • * In the counter-claim, proceeded ME:. ' Stout, the greater part of the evidence had been directed .to' the numerous claims made by Mrs. Byrne. These had . presented the greatest difficulty and/defendant .had been held to the strict onus' of proof.' *ln the result some of; the' claims, had been- substantiated.; on the. ' other hand some were petty and some were exaggerated. A total of £lB7. Is-’* 2d-had been claimed and judgment was. , entered for £B9 19s 9d. Costs Were allowed plaintiff' on the claim and defendant on the counter-7 claim. ' ■ . . ; / ' ! ... ■■ — • 7 > !’■. ■