SHAREMILKING DISPUTE

Taranaki Daily News, 14 February 1933, Page 8

SHAREMILKING DISPUTE

NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT MADE. 1 PARTIES IN CONFLICT AT COURT. After working for seventeen weeks on wages for Edward and Mrs. Mason, Midhirst, Richard J. Rogers, according to his statement in Court, entered into an agreement on June 1, 1931, to milk on shares for the Masons on their property at York Road, Midhirst. Between November and January last certain sums were deducted from Rogers’ cheque and the dispute that arose thereafter was sifted at Stratford yesterday by Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M. Rogers claimed that the Masons deducted £6 5s 3d for manure from his November cheque and another £4 from the December cheque, also for manure. Under the agreement, it was alleged, Rogers was not liable for hianure purchased by the Masons for use on the farm. A sum of £3 as interest allegedly deducted from the January cheque was also claimed, together with £4 as compensation for the wrongful deduction of the other three sums, making a total claim of £l7 5s 3d. Mr. S. Macalister appeared for Rogers and Mr. P. Thomson for the Masons. Judgment was given to Rogers for the amount for £3 interest and costs totalling £3 15s. Richard J. Rogers said he commenced sharemilking for the Masons on June 1, 1931. There was 25 cows and the terms were that he was to receive half the milk cheques and find a horse, dray and milk cans as well as do all necessary cropping and cutting of weeds. If he started a season he was to continue till the end of it, providing he did his work properly. For seventeen weeks prior to June 1, 1931, he was working for the Masons on wages. Mrs. Mason told him that instead of paying for the cans she had on the place he could supply manure to the value of £6 for the four cans. He supplied half a ton of manure, costing £2 2s 6d in October, 1931. When she approached him for more manure he asked for payment for the use of his horse during the 17 weeks and she agreed to forego the remaining ton of manure on that account. He considered then that he owned the cans. DEDUCTION FROM CHEQUE. Durjng July, 1932, Mrs. Mason asked him to get a ton of manure but he refused, and the next he heard on the question was when Mrs. Mason stopped £6 5s 3d from his November milk cheque, the amount representing li tor, of manure. From the December cheque £4 was deducted, representing one ton of manure. Through the stopping of the money from his cheques he was unable to purchase articles that he required for Christmas. He agreed to purchase the dray he needed from Mrs. Mason at £2B and paid £l6 on February 20 and £6 on May 20. The balance was paid in instalments of £2 each in March, April and May, 1932. Under cross-examination Rogers said he worked for the Masons in 1928-29 but owing to a dispute the arrangement under which he worked for them broke down. Early in 1931 he was working for George Perrett junr. but had trouble with him and was dismissed. He denied that the sharemilking arrangement was made between his wife and the Masons, Mason having said he would not enter into an agreement with witness. Under the agreement he received half the calves, house free of rent and free firewood and milk. Th share of the milk cheque was not always paid to his wife. Mr. Thomson quoted a letter from Rogers’ solicitors to the Mason’s solicitors in which the person referred to in every case was Mrs. Rogers. Now. he asked, “did you not bring this case to Court because your wife, being a of Mrs. Mason and knowing that the £6 5s 3d should have been deducted, refused to do sc?” —“No.” Witness went on to deny that his wife agreed to pay the Masons £3 extra on the purchase of the dray to compensate them for their accommodation. EVIDENCE OF THE WIFE. Alice May Rogers, wife of plaintiff, said her husband and not she was the sharemilker. She outlined the terms of the agreement in corroboration of Rogers statement. In May, 1931, the Masons called at witness’ place and Mrs. Mason said she would sell the cans to Rogers for £6. He agreed to that and witness understood that if he bought manure to the value of £6 the cans would be his property. She detailed the transactions in respect of the cans and the manure and maintained that her husband was the owner of the cans. In July Rogers refused to buy a ton of manure, but nothing more was said until the money was deducted from the cheques. To Mr. Thomson she said Mason did not refuse to deal with her husband, but , said that Rogers was the best man he (Mason) had ever had, A land agent, William H. H. Young, stated that in the case of a sharemilker engaged from season to season.it was not usual for the sharemilker to find man-

ure. Albert Turner, farmer of Midhirst, who was staying with the Masons in September and October, 1932, stated that Mrs. Mason mentioned Rogers was sftort of cash and said she would buy the cans while Rogers would buy manure to the value of the cans. On October 8 Mrs. Mason said something about Rogers’ buying 1J tons of manure and

witness asked her if Rogers had to supply 11 tons of manure every year, but she said the 1J tons was in payment for the cans.

Simialr evidence was given by Mrs. Turner.

In opening the defence Mr. Thomson said no contract was made between Mrs. Rogers and the Masons and that the deductions were made in accordance with the arrangement between Mrs. Rogers and Mason and his wife. Matilda Mason said she and her husband owned the York Road farms and the herd on the property. When Rogers worked for them in 1928-29 he had his own cans. The parties met in February, 1931, and Mason said he would make no arrangement with Rogers, so an agreement was made between the Masons and .Mrs. Rogers. The latter was to get half the milk cheque but had to provide cans, dray and 1J tons of manure a year in addition to doing the usual farm work. Rogers had an old dray for which £4 was allowed him as a trade in on the £2B dray. . The balance was to be paid by instalments when Mrs. Rogers could afford them. Witness purchased the dray in tWe first place for £32 and she had to borrow £2O at 81 per cent, to pay for it. Hence the deduction of £3 from the Rogers’ cheque as Interest. She and her husband bought 7 tons of slag and 11 tons of super was ordered, for which Rogers was to pay. ' The milk statements -were submitted to Mrs. Rogers, to whom payment was made. When Rogers paid the first instalment on the dray the amount was £6 and not £l6 as he stated, and the rest was paid in instalments of £1 and £2, the total debt not having been discharged till three or ■fr.nr months ago. When arrangements - for the 1931-32 season were being disr cussed the Rogers agreed to supply 11 tons of manure and as Mrs. Rogers did not want to pay for it from a bonus she agreed that witness should take the money from the two largest cheques for the season. Peter Blake, who .was present when the Rogers and the Masons were discussing the manure question, said that Mrs. Rogers stated she would pay for the manure from the two highest cheques. ; Blake admitted to Mr. Macahster that for all he knew the manure referred to might have been manure used in the previous season. Nelson Boyce, farmer of Eltham, said he remembered having spent a week-end at Rogers and having heard Mrs., Rogers say that she had to meet £lO odd foi manure and that she wanted it taken from the two largest cheques. Elsie M. Boyce, wife of the previous witness, and her daughter Sadie, were certain that Mrs. Rogers made the statement about the manure, they said.

Mr. Macalister called Rogers to give evidence in rebuttal and Rogers produced a diary in which, he said, he had entered at the time a remark made in his house by Mrs. Mason on October 9 last. The entry read: “Mrs. Mason said to me, my wife and Mrs. Turner that she had a clue over Mrs. Boyce and her father and mother. It would not do for them to go against her. She would make it worth while for them to go on 1 her side.” Mrs. Rogers stated that she heard the remark made.

The magistrate: Do you want to crossexamine, Mr. Thomson? Mr. Thomson: I wish we had ordered all witnesses out of Court at the start. The magistrate: Somebody would have been charged with perjury if we had. Mrs. Turner said she was convinced that Mrs. Mason made the statement. Mr. Thomson: I think I will call Mason. The magistrate: I do not think that is necessary. However, I have reached a conclusion, subject to the rion-suit point, that is not entirely favourable to your case, so perhaps you had better call him.

Mason gave details of various conversations that took place. “An agreement between sharemilkers appears to. be one that should be in writing, and it might be that the present claim, on a strictly legal basis, would have to fail under the Statute of Fraud,” Mr. Woodward said. The claim, he continued, was for an amount under £5O, .and he intended to use his equity and good conscience jurisdiction even if the agreement was one to, which the Statute of Fraud applied, though he did not think it did. He was satisfied, and the evidence of Mrs. Mason supported his conclusion, that Rogers was one of the principals to the agreement and that Rogers had properly brought the action. He considered the deductions of £6 5s 3d and £4 for manure were properly made, but as there was no written agreement the £3 in interest could not be charged. In any case it was an exorbitant rate. There was no evidence to show that Rogers suffered loss by the detention of the monies except his statement that he

could not get what he wanted at Christmas, and Mr. Woodward would not allow that item. Judgement therefore would be for Rogers for £3 with costs £3 15s.